Preamble

The House met at half–past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 12 February at 7 o'clock.

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 14 February.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 11 February.

Mr. Speaker: Bills 2 to 16 on the Order Paper all have blocking motions. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL (By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL (By Order)

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Television (Highlands and Islands)

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the likely impact of the Broadcasting Act on the local television coverage of Grampian and the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am confident that the north of Scotland will in future continue to receive the same high–quality service as it currently enjoys.

Mr. Kennedy: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recent decision to offer guarantees over three years to preserve the integrity of the present Grampian boundaries for television purposes. But is he aware of the legitimate anxiety that still exists in the north of Scotland generally —in Grampian, in the highlands and islands and the northern and western isles—that beyond that period a predatory bid—say, from central Scotland—could result in there being only one independent television company covering all of Scotland? Given the diversity of views and of regional interests across the country, that would he wholly unacceptable to north of Scotland interests.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for my decision. It means that in this round of bidding, the licence for the Grampian area cannot be bid for by its larger neighbour. The licence can, of course, he bid for by other groups or companies, but the television group has a restricted interest in that. After 1993, it will be possible for the smaller television companies to be bid for by their larger neighbours. Mergers or takeovers will be permitted from the end of 1992–93 at the discretion of the Independent Television Commission.

Mr. Wilson: I, too, welcome what has been done, but does the Home Secretary recognise that a new irony has been created in that, until 1993, the only companies that cannot take over Grampian or any small company are those next door to them, which arguably would be the more suitable if there had to be a takeover? It is odd that Mr. Berlusconi can take over Grampian but Scottish Television cannot. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a more stable state of affairs if, once the areas for transmission had been defined and the franchises awarded for a set period, that remained the position until the next awarding of franchises and that until then any hostile takeover bid was automatically ruled out of court?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a moratorium. Perhaps during that period sensible mergers will come about. It has been said that some of the smaller companies might not be viable for long. That is not ruled out, but it must be at the discretion of the ITC. I


assure the hon. Gentleman and others whose constituencies are in the areas of the smaller companies that at the bidding stage and in the case of a change of ownership in the future, good regional programmes will continue to be made and shown. Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 specifically requires that. There are also requirements that regional news shall be of a high quality and that a suitable proportion of regional programmes shall continue to be made in the region.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters to people in the Grampian area and in the highlands is not who owns the franchise but that, as he said, thanks to the scrutiny of the House, there is a much stronger regional requirement in the Broadcasting Act than previously was the case? People in the highlands and Grampian region can look forward to the future in the knowledge that there will have to be a properly structured regional service, whoever may own it.

Mr. Baker: I can confirm exactly what my hon. Friend said—the Broadcasting Act 1990 contains that requirement. A strength of independent television is the good quality of regional television companies. Many of them have established large production facilities and do a very good job. We wish to ensure that they continue to do so.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although we all welcome the moratorium that the Home Secretary announced on 28 January, not least those of us who represent constituencies covered by the effective Grampian Television, what procedures will the Home Secretary bring into force to ensure that during the moratorium there will be a clear analysis of the position? It will be small compensation to have a short–term moratorium if, later, Grampian Television and other regional programmes are taken over by a predator with no interest in the area.

Mr. Baker: My powers in that sector are clearly restricted. It is now the ITC's responsibility to police the round of licence bidding and, after the moratorium, to consider whether mergers should take place. It will be bound by the provisions of the statute and will take into account the points made.

Metropolitan Police

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated Metropolitan police manpower in 1991–92; and what were actual numbers employed in 1978–79.

The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The strength of the Metropolitan police on 30 April 1979 was 22,225. The planned average strength of the Metropolitan police in 1991–92 is 28,465, giving the force over 6,000 more officers than when the Government took office.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows an increase of 30 per cent. in Metropolitan police manpower. Although that is welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that the clear–up rate of crime in the Metropolitan police area is still depressingly low? Does he believe that that is because the police spend too much time dealing with minor motoring offences?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the clear–up rate for the serious crime of violence against

the person has increased substantially and that the incidence of street violence, because of the campaign by the Met, has decreased. However, the Met is not happy with its present clear–up rate and has begun a crime investigation project, involving more manpower for the CID, improved training, better supervision and, importantly, more information and support for victims. That is a practical response to my hon. Friend's justified worry.

Mr. Malins: Does my hon. Friend agree that what gives the public confidence is not so much the number of police, but the number they see on the street? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he is constantly encouraging the police force in London to put more officers on the streets meeting the public?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The presence of police officers is encouraging to law–abiding citizens and discouraging to those who want to break the law. The Met understand that point, which we frequently make to them. There are other ways in which the police force can be effectively deployed, one of which, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), is to clear up crimes.

Mr. Sheerman: Is not the Minister dodging and weaving here? Is not it a fact that the information that we have from the Met is that, even with the 30 per cent. increase in police manpower, there are fewer policemen and women on the beat now compared with 1979? Is not that a disgrace when crime rates have been soaring and, as has been said, the best sort of crime prevention is the visibility of the police on the street? When will the Government introduce those policies in the Met, put police officers on the street and give them the backing to protect the ordinary citizen?

Mr. Lloyd: The Met certainly has the Government's backing, as can be seen by the increase in the numbers. The day–to–day deployment of forces is a matter for the Commissioner of Police. I am satisfied that he understands the necessity of having policemen on the beat. I believe that, with the increased numbers that we have provided, the number of policemen out on the streets is greater than when the Labour Government left office.

Prevention of Terrorism

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the workings of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is reviewed annually. The review of its operation in 1990 has been undertaken by Viscount Colville of Culross and his report will be published shortly.

Mr. Sims: Does not this morning's incident in Whitehall, not to mention the threats emanating from Iraq, vividly illustrate the need for the Act? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that the Opposition, who aspire to government, have not only failed to support this legislation but consistently opposed it? Will he join me in urging them, even at this stage, to change their attitude?

Mr. Baker: The House will be aware that I am making a statement later this afternoon about the incident, so I


shall not say any thing about it now. I am clear that at this moment we should not lower our defences against terrorism. I shall shortly be bringing before the House powers to renew the Act.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State consider the introduction of a national identity card as a means of assisting in the prevention of terrorism?

Mr. Baker: That has been examined in the past and some thought has been given to having a voluntary national identity card. I can see no purpose in having such a card. This country has not had such cards, although they are common on the continent. I am not yet persuaded that that is the best way to pursue the matter. The hon. Gentleman holds up his pass. He will realise that that is not a card of identity that could be used effectively outside a narrow area, although it is important for people to have their passes when they come to the House.

Mr. Allason: Bearing in mind our experience in previous terrorist cases, where suspects have subsequently claimed that confessions have been extracted from them under duress, why do the Government object to the use of video cameras when terrorist suspects are being interviewed?

Mr. Baker: That goes very much wider than the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and deals with the whole question of procedures to be followed when interviewing not only possible terrorists but other criminals. At this stage I am not prepared to make a statement on that.

Mr. Hattersley: May I put it to the Home Secretary that this is the worst possible moment for any hon. Member to attempt to drive wedges between the democratically elected parties? This is a time for a united condemnation of terrorism and to drive wedges between the democratically elected parties can only comfort the terrorists as they notice the squalid tactics of some Conservative Members.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that the whole House and the whole nation will condemn acts of terrorism. However, condemnation is not enough. We have to be prepared to take action and the Prevention of Terrorism Act gives us certain powers which I am satisfied any Government require. We will shortly bring forward proposals to extend those powers.

Border Controls

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about border control between Britain and other European Community countries.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We are continuing to take part in discussions with, our Community partners about free movement of people in the light of the single European market. We have made it clear that our participation in those discussions does not in any way weaken our resolve to retain necessary frontier checks.

Mr. Knox: Why do not the Government agree to withdraw all border checks between Britain and the other Community countries? Does my hon. Friend really think that such checks fulfil any useful function?

Mr. Lloyd: We have streamlined entry for EC citizens, who pass with the minimum of delay, having demonstrated by the production of a passport or an identity card that they are EC nationals. We must certainly require continuing checks to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, other crimes and immigration by third–country nationals. We intend to keep those controls.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's positive answer, but will he support the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in resisting attempts by the Government of the Republic to remove military checkpoints, which are for the protection of people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lloyd: If that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I endorse it with enthusiasm.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend confirm that now that so many other EC countries are being threatened by massive immigration from northern Africa, they are moving towards the position that the British Government have adopted on the need for border controls?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. and learned Friend is right. There is great pressure from migration from all parts of the world into western Europe and all western European and north American countries have similar problems.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that border controls, as well as terrorism, drugs and police co–operation, are considered by the Trevi group of Ministers? Is he also aware that for a long time there has been deep concern that the Trevi group is not accountable to the House? The Labour party welcomes as a step in the right direction the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the accountability of the Trevi group, but it is disappointed that the Home Secretary did not make a statement to the House after the Trevi meeting that he attended on 22 January. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed in practice to making the Trevi group fully accountable to the House?

Mr. Lloyd: It is the Home Secretary who is accountable to the House, not any international grouping. That is a constitutional impossibility. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did what his predecessors have always done: he gave a written answer to a question that was put to him to enable him to report on the outcome of the Trevi meeting. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had substantial issues to report, he would come to the House to do so in person.

Immigration

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to enhance the expedition with which claims to immigration rights are resolved.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The immigration and nationality department is required to meet a rising demand for its services. Every effort is being made to deal with the work expeditiously. Improvements in efficiency have been made in many areas and additional resources are being provided for the next financial year.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedures involved in the cases of alleged illegal immigrants, including various forms of appeal, can mean that an alleged illegal immigrant can wait some months, or even up to a year, before a final decision is reached? As what is at issue in most cases is a matter of fact, can nothing be done to speed the process?

Mr. Baker: I am concerned about the substantial delays in the department which are growing because of the number of applications for settlement here and for entry for various purposes which involve not only adjudication but determination by tribunals. That takes a long time. It is made all the more difficult by the matters referred to briefly in the previous question. We are facing an unprecedented increase in the number of applications for political asylum in Britain which is delaying the process. I shall be coming to the House with proposals to deal with that in the near future.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in addition to lengthy delays between hearings and appeals, there are often administrative mix–ups, such as that involving my constituent, Mr. Mohammad Ifran? On 10 September, the Home Office was informed that his appeal had been upheld and it immediately told the entry clearance officer in Islamabad, but the papers sat on his desk for eight long weeks before he issued the entry clearance certificate. We are dealing with wives waiting on husbands and husbands waiting on wives. Eight weeks is a long time to wait after one has already waited for two years.

Mr. Baker: I will look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although I believe that the issuing department in that instance was the Foreign Office. I hope that administrative mistakes will be avoided wherever possible, but the Croydon office has a massive amount of work. It receives 1,000 visits every day from people wanting to change the conditions of their stay in this country. That work alone—5,000 personal visits a week and many thousands of telephone calls in addition—represents a huge administrative task.

Mr. Favell: Are the British Government and the other Governments of western Europe ready for the huge wave of immigration that is bound to emanate from Russia? At present, the border between Poland and Russia is manned only by Russian border guards and there are plans to remove even them. Poland expects that millions of Russian emigrants will not remain in Poland, but will head across Europe.

Mr. Baker: There are movements of population across the world—and particularly across Europe—that we have not experienced, literally, for centuries. There is a strong movement of people from the Maghreb across the Mediterranean to southern Europe and the potential of a large movement from Russia in particular. At a conference that I attended recently, a Russian Minister said that 6 million or 7 million Russians will want to move to Europe once they get passports. He said that the Helsinki accord, with its concept of open frontiers, will allow them to do so. I pointed out to him that open frontiers allow people to move to and fro, but do not entitle them to settle in the countries to which they move. We and the rest of Europe will have to address that major problem during the next decade.

Mr. Hattersley: Although the Home Office is refusing entry applications more quickly then ever, appeals against such refusals are taking longer to process than in the past. That is often a result of the Home Office's initial statement of refusal taking six months to prepare. Can the Home Secretary do something to speed that up?

Mr. Baker: As I said, I will bring before the House proposals to deal specifically with political asylum, applications for which are currently running at several hundred a week. In addition, we have secured from the Treasury in the Public Expenditure Survey Committee settlement an additional £10 million for 1991–92 which will bring the budget for that part of the Home Office up to £108 million. That will allow for the recruitment of another 200 civil servants to deal with normal immigration work.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern among Conservative Members about the massive increase in applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom, given that the vast majority of those cases—although not all—are bogus? Does he agree that it would be useful to streamline the application procedure, so that they can be turned round much more quickly and a message sent abroad that Britain is not a soft touch?

Mr. Baker: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend touches on an important matter. The number of applications for political asylum used to be in the region of 2,000 to 3,000 a year, but last year the figure was nearer 25,000. Although we must always provide a refuge for those who flee their countries because of a well–founded fear of persecution, many who apply for political asylum are nothing more than economic migrants who would prefer to live in western Europe or in our country rather than their own. That was not the intention behind the refugee convention.

TV Licences

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of television licence fees for people of pensionable age.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Most pensioners pay the same as other people: £71 for a colour licence and £24 for a black and white licence. My right hon. Friend announced on 14 January that we would hold the next increase 3 per cent. below the retail prices index figure that is used to set state pensions.

Mr. Cryer: Most pensioners believe that the rules introduced in May 1988 discriminate unfairly between pensioners, most of whom enjoy nowhere near the level of income of those who receive wages and salaries. Would not it be better to sweep away the bureaucratic and nonsensical rules and introduce a standard flat fee of, say, £5? Many pensioners feel that they have been discarded and forgotten by the Government in many ways. Many of them fought for this country in the 1939–45 war and they feel that they have been very unjustly dealt with.

Mr. Lloyd: The cost of giving pensioners free television licences, or of charging them only £5, would be very large. It would need to be met by the rest of the licence payers, many of whom are much poorer than some pensioners, so that would hardly be fair. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central


(Mr. Fisher), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, and who suggested that any assistance to pensioners should, at the very least, be selective. That hon. Gentleman is on the right lines, but he should go further and agree that if extra resources are available, they should be directed at pensioners most in need to spend as they wish. That is what the Government did a year ago when they provided £200 million extra in the pension element of income support rates. That is the best way to help, where help is most needed.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that if the principle is ever established that the tax payer should pay for the pleasures of all persons over a certain age, no matter how rich the pensioner or how poor the taxpayer, we should indeed be on a slippery slope?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. If we ever did that, we should have slipped a long way down the slope by that time.

Mr. Corbett: We know that the Government do not agree with us about exempting pensioner households from the television licence, but does the Minister acknowledge the resentment that the present concessionary scheme causes between pensioner neighbours? Is he aware, for example, that if one flat in a block of 50 is sold to someone under pensionable age, the elderly council tenants resident in the other 49 flats will lose their concession? Will heat least do something to put that right?

Mr. Lloyd: If a scheme falls within the concession, it is foolish of the council to sell one of the houses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It is the right to buy."] No, it is not the right to buy. The characteristic of such dwellings is that they are available for those over 60, and that they provide services appropriate to that age group, so the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggests does not happen. Since the new rules were introduced—after the Kirklees judgment, which obliged us to bring in a set of rules which were justifiable in court—the number of pensioners who benefit from the concession has gone up rather than down. It is about 100,000 more now than it was then, which shows that local authorities can manage to organise their housing for the elderly to take advantage of the concession.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all pensioners are poor and that, under this Government, pensioners are better off than they have ever been, but that they are many low-income families who feel that the television licence is unfair and should be scrapped?

Mr. Lloyd: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is why my right hon. Friend is requiring the BBC to make do with a licence fee increase which is less than the inflation rate at present.

Islands

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to discuss those matters for which he is responsible.

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last had discussions with

members or officials of the Isle Of Man Government; and whether he discussed taxation matters affecting the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Since assuming his present duties, my right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to visit any of the islands, or to have discussions with members or officials of their Governments. I met representatives of the islands on 15 January. We did not discuss taxation matters.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister must surely be aware that the British Government have responsibility for the general good government of those islands, as well as for foreign affairs and defence. In view of the increased use of the islands for laundering drugs money and as a haven for the shadiest of financial institutions, will the Government, take a more active interest in them and exercise their responsibility for general good government?

Mr. Lloyd: In contact with the Bank of England, the islands Governments have improved their arrangements for such matters. Far from being marginal, they are extremely effective and bear comparison with our arrangements. But the islands are self-governing and have democratic Governments. That is a state of affairs with which the vast majority of the people of the islands are highly satisfied.

Mr. Holt: When my hon. Friend next talks to the Tynwald councillors, will he deal not only with taxation but with the scandal of the Isle of Man Savings Investment Bank, which has caused thousands of people in Britain, including my constituent Gwen Lamb to lose their life savings? Eight years later, the people responsible for that fraud are still walking free in the Isle of Man, and no one is doing anything about it. The Government have a moral responsibility for the legal aspects. May we look to the Government to ensure that some compensation along the lines of that made in the Barlow Clowes case is urged upon the Isle of Man so that the people affected do not have to suffer any longer?

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Manx Government suggested to the Tynwald that there should be a scheme of compensation once the inspector's report was available. The Director of Public Prosecutions in this country asked that the report should not be made public until he had completed all his inquiries. I understand that he has not yet completed all his inquiries. However, I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on the part of his constituent, so I will bring his inquiry to the attention of the Government of the Isle of Man and make sure that they are well aware of his feelings on the subject.

Prison Department Farmland

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total acreage of farmland in the ownership of the prison department or within its management.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Some 8,600 acres of the prison estate are framed for production.

Mr. Field: As it is more than three and a half years since the National Audit Office published its report on the prison farms, could my right hon. Friend make a


statement to the House on what progress has been made? Is she aware that the report particularly highlighted the acceptable and unavoidable inefficiency costs of prison farms? Can she place in the Library figures for the yield per acre expressed in produce and income terms?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the survey was completed some two years ago. The net outcome was a conclusion that the prison farm service is a cost effective and good service. It is more cost effective to run the service this way rather than any other way. He will also be glad to know that some £2 million of income is generated by the farms over and above the supplies with which they support the prisons.

Mr. Tim Smith: Why does the prison department own 8,600 acres of farmland?

Mrs. Rumbold: That is a matter which my hon. Friend may contemplate by considering the history of the prison farm service. It was always considered useful for the prison department to own farmland in order to make supplies available to the prisons and to provide work for prison inmates.

Iraqi Citizens

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi citizens have been deported or told to leave the United Kingdom since the start of the current Gulf crisis.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: One hundred and sixty two Iraqi citizens have been served with notices of intention to deport them on the grounds of national security since 2 August 1990. Of these, three have been deported and 77 have left the United Kingdom voluntarily.

Mr. Canavan: Does the last night's welcome release of four detainees make the Home Secretary think that other people of Arab origin, including Iraqis, may be being detained and threatened with deportation when some of them have had a long–standing record of opposing Saddam Hussein's regime, even before the invasion of Kuwait? Bearing in mind the inadequacies of the existing advisory procedures through the so-called three wise men, is not there a distinct danger during a war which is supposed to be about the restoration of human rights that the British Government may deprive many innocent people of their basic human rights in a way similar to the disgraceful detention of many people in the Italian community during the last world war?

Mr. Baker: My first priority as Home Secretary must be the security and safety of the people of our country. Saddam Hussein has made a general threat of terrorism. He has subjected some of his own people to terrorist attacks, he has subjected the people of Kuwait to terrorist attacks since 2 August and he has threatened terrorist attacks across the world. In those circumstances, when I receive advice I have to act and I believe that anybody holding my office would have acted as I have done. As to the inquiry appeal procedure, the system is working and I believe that it is working correctly.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of civil rights. I appreciate that there is a tension between national

security and civil liberty, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words uttered yesterday by Lord Justice Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls:
The maintenance of national security underpins and is the foundation of all our civil liberties.

Mr. Dykes: Bearing in mind the enormous difficulties, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on getting the balance exactly right—obliging the serious security risks to leave the country, but maintaining human rights in the other areas where there is at least a question mark? That emphasises once again that our quarrel is exclusively with Saddam Hussein and his entourage, and not with the people of Iraq.

Mr. Baker: Yes, I would stress that very strongly. We estimate that there are about 10,000 Iraqi citizens living in this country. The great bulk of those people loathe Saddam Hussein. In fact, they fled from Iraq and would want to go back only if he ceased to govern that country. Therefore, I do not believe, as some people have impressed upon me, that there should be general rights of internment. That would not be at all appropriate. I have to act against certain people when I receive certain advice; I believe that I have acted correctly and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

Mr. Maclennan: While recognising the paramountcy of the Home Secretary's obligation in this situation to put the security of our country first, may I ask him to take a very close personal interest in individual cases so that those who are subject to these quite extraordinary procedures may know that the facts are being properly examined at the highest level of government?

Mr. Baker: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. These matters are not taken lightly. I look at each case individually and I consider the advice that comes from various sources, including the panel of inquiry. This is a very grave and serious responsibility for anyone holding my office. One does not want people to be detained or deported unless there is good excuse.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend have any flexibility when it comes to the destination of a person being deported as having been shown to be a risk to United Kingdom national security? If no country is willing to take the deportee, can the Home Secretary give that person the option of staying in detention in the United Kingdom? Clearly, there are people who might be at risk if they were sent, say, to Jordan or Iraq and who have reason to be genuinely concerned about their own safety.

Mr. Baker: The procedure is that I issue a notice of intention to deport. The person subject to that intention has a right of appeal to the advisory panel of three. If, as a result, I confirm the intention to deport, I issue a proper deportation notice. The person concerned also has a right of appeal in respect of the destination. We are currently discussing with some people the countries to which they wish to go. Today, two have volunteered to go to different countries in the middle east.

Mr. Darling: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is the Government's primary duty to protect our citizens against Iraqis or people of other nationalities who may pose a threat to us? Does he also accept, however, that no matter what the provocation, we must set and maintain high standards? Does he agree that we would avoid the


risk of making mistakes if detainees were told what case they had to answer and were allowed representation at the tribunals? Does he accept that, notwithstanding yesterday's decisions, it is vital to avoid mistakes that 'would result in alienating people of good will with whom we shall have to work when the Gulf war is over?

Mr. Baker: The friend accompanying a detainee at an appeal may be a person who is legally qualified. I talked to Lord Justice Lloyd yesterday and I understand that he has spoken to the lawyers representing several of the detainees. I am satisfied that everything possible is being done, but I ask the House to appreciate that where matters of national security are concerned it is always better to be safe than sorry.

Broadcasting Standards Council

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the role so far of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: There were representations from various interested parties following the council's establishment in May 1988. I have received none since it was made statutory on 1 January this year.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Broadcasting Standards Council on the work that it has done so far, in particular on the code of guidance that it issued just before it became a statutory body? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that families want an absolute assurance about the contents of television programmes before they turn on their television sets?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words about the Broadcasting Standards Council and the code of conduct that it published just before Christmas. Many people are concerned about the portrayal of sex and violence and matters involving taste and decency on television, particularly when programmes can be seen by impressionable young people. I believe that the council's work is very valuable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7.,February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the president of the International Red Cross.

Mr. Ashby: When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the International Red Cross this evening, will he tell him of the utter revulsion that the British people feel about the treatment of prisoners of war by Saddam Hussein? Will he urge the International Red Cross to redouble its efforts to obtain from the Iraqis details of the prisoners of war and about access to them? Will he ask the Intenational Red Cross please to remind Saddam Hussein

that the Iraqis cannot expect to benefit from the International Red Cross if, at the same time, Iraq refuses to honour its agreements under the Geneva convention?

Mr. Major: I shall certainly be making those points, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did yesterday. I shall also be making it clear that in no way can Iraq's behaviour be equated with that of the allies in their treatment of prisoners of war. Iraq is in gross and flagrant violation of its obligations while the allies are doing everything possible to ensure that they meet their commitments under the Geneva convention.

Mr. Kinnock: Today's attack in Whitehall was both vicious and futile, since it will neither intimidate nor divert anyone, whether in government or opposition, in this democracy. May I express my relief at the fact that the attack caused so little harm to people, my admiration for the workers in Whitehall who continued with their duties, and my appreciation of the emergency services who responded with great speed and expertise? Today's experience further increases our fellow feeling for the people of Northern Ireland who have lived with such atrocities for nearly two decades. May I put to the Prime Minister my firm view that outrages such as the one today increase the unity and determination that we all share to defend democracy and defeat terrorism, whatever its source.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he shares my contempt for terrorism, which he has just expressed again most eloquently. It is clear from the timing of this morning's attack that it was a deliberate attempt both to kill the Cabinet and to do damage to our democratic system of government. It failed. In no circumstances could it possibly have succeeded. Many people in this country, including most noticeably those many brave people in Northern Ireland, have been the victims of terrorist attacks on many occasions. None of those attacks succeeded in changing the policy of successive Governments, nor the policies or principles of this House in any single iota—nor will they. The IRA's record is one of deep failure in every respect. That failure was demonstrated yet again today. It is about time the IRA learned that democracies cannot be intimidated by terrorism and we rightly treat it with contempt.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the present exceptionally cold weather, which is forecast to increase in intensity, some of our fellow citizens, especially the elderly and the infirm, may suffer grievously? Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider ways and means of providing extra help for such people?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary this morning to discuss the particular problems caused by the wholly exceptional weather. Severe weather payments have already been triggered in half the country and that may be extended. Our primary concern now is to ensure that vulnerable groups keep warm. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing later today that the seven-day qualifying period will be waived in view of the exceptionally severe weather. Therefore, people should keep warm—secure in the knowledge that payment will be


made to those eligible even if, as forecast, the cold weather lasts only a few days. Payment will also be made at the enhanced rate of £6 per week to reflect higher fuel charges.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister pass on our best wishes to those who were injured in this morning's outrage? Does he realise that the whole House and, I believe, the whole nation will back him in his determination to ensure that government continues as usual, despite this morning's outrage? Does he agree that the operation of an open democracy necessarily carries with it some risks and that the proper response to terrorism is to do as he has done and make it clear that we will not be deflected in our policies or weakened in our determination to preserve the open and accessible character of our democracy?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House in what he has said. Our determination to beat terrorism cannot be defeated by terrorism. I hope that that is fully understood everywhere. I shall be happy to pass on the right hon. Gentleman's best wishes to those who were injured and also his congratulations and those of the Leader of the Opposition to those many people from the emergency services who helped this morning.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Northern Ireland fully support what the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has said today? Will he also accept that they congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their escape today? Will he bear it in mind that those of us who represent Northern Ireland in the House often face difficulties when murders and atrocities take place in Northern Ireland and we cannot have the time of the House to bring them to hon. Members' attention as has occurred today? Will the Prime Minister consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consider whether immediate action can be taken to ensure that the fair employment legislation is not used against workers supporting the war in the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises that, alas, Northern Ireland has had far too much experience of the sort of attack that we have seen today in London. The hon. Gentleman will know of the firm opposition of the Government and their prececessors to that sort of attack in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Further to his reply to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North–West (Mr. Ashby), when the Prime Minister meets the president of the International Red Cross, will he confirm that while we insist that Iraq accepts its responsibilities, we will also accept our responsibilities with regard to others who are suffering because of our allies' failure to accept the International Red Cross and the Geneva convention? Will he tell the president that he will re-affirm that commitment to the Israeli Government in relation to their treatment of the Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza?

The Prime Minister: All allies in this conflict are following the Geneva convention to the letter. That is, has been and will continue to be the case.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: In view of my right hon. Friend's great concern for the plight of Terry Waite and the other British hostages in Beirut, will he give serious consideration to sending a senior emissary to Tehran and Damascus—taking advantage of our restored diplomatic relations—and to Beirut to learn at first hand what more the British Government can do to obtain the hostages' long-overdue release?

The Prime Minister: We remain very concerned about the plight of Mr. Waite, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Mann and about the effect on their families of their long imprisonment. We already have representatives in Teheran, Damascus and Beirut and they are devoting a great deal of effort to securing the release of our hostages. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Syrian Foreign Minister Ash–Shara' yesterday and made it clear yet again that Syria will do all that it can to secure their release.

Mrs. Heal: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Heal: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the cold weather payments. As one who knows well the weaknesses of that system, why does he not use the power that he has to abandon the scheme altogether and look for a general uprating of pensions for all people all the time?

The Prime Minister: In making that point, the hon. Lady wholly forgets the changes that have been made to the payments available. She has perhaps also overlooked the fact that severe weather payments did not exist at all when last there was a Labour Government.

Mr. Stanbrook: In view of my right hon. Friend's welcome words about the people of Northern Ireland, do not they now deserve a promise that they will never be removed from the protection of the British Crown?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, they have that certainty without their express wish to be otherwise.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 8 November last year, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing his autumn statement, he said that for this financial year there would be a budget surplus of £3 billion? Is he aware that many Ministers are saying that that £3 billion surplus has disappeared? If such a gross miscalculation had been made by a Labour local authority, it would have been subjected to poll tax capping and surcharge. What does the Prime Minister intend to do —sack his Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: As to the fiscal position, that will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget. As to the accuracy of forecasts, far be it from


me to recall unhappy memories for the hon. Gentleman, but there were occasions when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was out by several hundred per cent. in his fiscal forecasts.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Prime Minister congratulate those of our allies such as Turkey, and other nations that have fundamentalist Muslim insurrectionists and great difficulty maintaining political stability, on the brave moves that they have made in furthering the allied cause in the Gulf?

The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to do that. My hon. Friend expresses the point most eloquently.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: May I share with the Prime Minister a problem that I have?

Hon. Members: "No."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Provided that it is a question.

Mr. Banks: It is not that sort of problem, anyway. A small gent came into my constituency office on Monday and said, "Why is it that in Britain we have the highest inflation rate, the highest interest rates and the highest balance of payments deficit in the European Economic Community?" He asked whether these were the problems of success or an indication that the economy was in deep doo-doo. I said that I had not the faintest idea, but that the next time I saw the Prime Minister I would ask him. So what is it—economic success or deep doo-doo?

The Prime Minister: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea, for his facts are wrong.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Following the previous point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the stability of sterling against the deutschmark, despite the recent rise in German interest rates, shows increasing confidence in the Government's determination to bring down inflation within the exchange rate discipline? Is not that the best framework for a lasting and sustained reduction in interest rates, with the removal of the premium required for holders of sterling in terms of interest rates against other currencies? Is not that better for British industry than the cut-and-run tactics practised by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: The stability certainly reflects, to some extent, our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, which is in no sense a straitjacket. If the pound were falling, we should not be able to cut interest rates whether we were in or out of the exchange rate mechanism. In due course, the stability that the mechanism provides will help and not hinder. The opportunity will come as our inflation rate falls.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that 1 gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: The husband of a constituent of mine unfortunately died in the Gulf a few months ago. As a result, my constituent and her daughter lost their home in Germany and require to be rehoused by the local council, which has not been able to rehouse them. If that is an indication of the way in which the Army treats widows, will local authorities be able to cope in those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Army will always look at these matters sympathetically. If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with the details of the case, of which I had no prior knowledge, I shall be happy to examine it for him.

Terrorist Incident (Whitehall)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about events in Whitehall earlier today.
Shortly after 10 am, a white Transit van was driven up and left on the corner of Whitehall and Horse Guards avenue. At about 10·8 am, three mortars were fired from the vehicle, either by remote control or with a timing device, in the direction of Downing street. One of the mortars landed in the back garden of No. 10 Downing street and exploded. The other two landed on Mountbatten green, behind the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. One exploded but the other failed to do so, disgorging its contents on the green.
One official and one police officer were injured. We believe that their injuries were not serious; a number of other people may have had minor injuries. I am sure that the whole House will want to convey its sympathy to those people. It is indeed fortunate that there were no worse injuries. Several windows at the back of No. 10 were shattered, but no structural damage is apparent.
The police and emergency services arrived rapidly on the scene. The whole area was cordoned off and explosives officers searched the scene for further devices. The whole House will wish to thank the police and emergency services for their immediate response and for the skill and courage they showed.
This reckless attack appears to have been the work of the Provisional IRA. Mortar attacks, sadly, are not unknown in Northern Ireland, but this is the first time that terrorists have attempted such an attack on the mainland of Britain. The terrorists constantly change their methods of attack in an attempt to catch us off our guard. We must be on our guard at all times against attacks from a variety of sources.
The Government have a range of contingency plans against the terrorist threat and counter–measures are kept under constant review. We are urgently assessing the significance of this morning's attack and its implications for security. We will be looking again at the physical security of the whole Westminster and Whitehall area. It must be made as safe as humanly possible for all those who live or work in the area, as well as for the millions who visit or travel through it.
We must take all reasonable security measures. That means continuing police efforts and public vigilance in support of them. But there is a limit to the sort of defensive measures that can be taken. In a democracy, people wish to be free to go about their business. To disrupt their lives any more than we need to would be a concession to terrorism.
This attack bears all the hallmarks of the violence perpetrated by the Provisional IRA, who have killed so many people and caused so much injury and suffering in Northern Ireland, on the continent of Europe and on the mainland of Great Britain. We must be thankful that, in this instance, the terrorists were unsuccessful.
The whole House and the whole country will utterly condemn this deliberate and ruthless attempt to injure or to kill members of the Government, officials and, indeed, anyone else who might have been in the vicinity of such a reckless and cowardly attack. The House will need no

reminding that many visitors, families and children visit Downing street and it was only by chance that no group was there today.
The House will want to be reassured that the Cabinet met to conduct its business as usual. The machinery of government and our democratic process were not, and will not be, disrupted by terrorist attacks. Today, terrorists have attempted to strike at the heart of our Government: they have failed.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I begin by joining the Home Secretary in his condemnation of the act of terrorism that took place this morning? We express our profound relief that no one was killed, and offer our sympathy to the police officer and to the member of the Downing street staff who were injured and to those members of the public who, the Home Secretary tells us, suffered minor injuries as a result of what happened.
May I also express our admiration and gratitude to those members of the police, of the fire brigade and of the ambulance services who, as always on these occasions, did their duty at considerable risk to themselves?
May I support the Home Secretary in his insistence that neither the business of government nor the processes of Parliament can be disrupted by this attack or by such attacks? May I make it clear that we believe that an attack on the democratically elected Government of this country is an attack on democracy itself?
May I finally, and most importantly, reiterate the determination of the Opposition that terrorism of all sorts will be defeated? The perpetrators of today's attack can gain nothing and will gain nothing from what they did. We look forward to their speedy capture and to the conviction of all those who were in any way responsible.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the words of the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that the whole House is united on this. As he rightly said, attacks of this sort are an attack on our democratic process. Terrorists, to whichever terrorist group they belong, are not interested in democratic processes; they just want to destroy the democratic process. May I also thank the Leader of the Opposition personally for his words on the 1 o'clock news? On these matters, nothing divides us.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Is the Home Secretary aware that the IRA maintains very close liaison with other terrorist groupings throughout the world, including Arab terrorists? Does he accept that this latest dastardly attack, which will not deter either the Government or the people of the United Kingdom, may be another form of proxy, this time on behalf of Iraq? The IRA will be hoping to obtain money and guns from that country.

Mr. Baker: The IRA has in the past certainly derived a great deal of help from the Libyan Government. However, I must say to my hon. Friend that I have no special reason to connect this morning's IRA attack with the activities of any other terrorist group.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The right hon. Gentleman's statement rightly ended with an assurance that the democratic process would not be disrupted by terrorism. Does he share my deep regret that we have not yet seen the restoration to Northern Ireland of the democracy that was removed 18 years ago, at the behest of terrorists?

Mr. Baker: Of course I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Talks are continuing at present to try to make some movement in the Province. The people he represents and the people of Northern Ireland generally have been subjected to considerable violence over the past 20 years or so. It is violence perpetrated by terrorists—principally by the IRA, but by others as well. We must defeat them there, just as we must defeat them in Great Britain.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I add to the expressions of relief about the fact that, happily, nobody was injured in this dastardly attack, my congratulations and those of all Conservative Members to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the typically robust and courageous way in which they responded this afternoon? I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that although such an attack may win publicity for the IRA, it can do nothing but strengthen public support for Government policy.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend speaks for the whole House in that and not just for Conservative Members. We must make it clear that these attacks do not break the resolve of the Government to continue governing—that is what terrorists always want to do. They have made a dramatic attack, but it has not succeeded; it has failed. That is the important message which must go out.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that I completely accept his view that terrorists will always break through even the best security arrangements and that this morning, judging from his report to the House, the emergency services, as ever, did well?
As he is the police authority for the Metropolitan police—this does not apply to any other part of the country—and with his complete responsibility, whose head will the right hon. Gentleman cause to roll for allowing the failure of security? In our main road near Parliament, a vehicle was parked for eight minutes. If anybody else tried to park there, he would be stopped. Something went wrong. Will the Home Secretary look into that?

Mr. Baker: I am surprised that such comments should be made by a right hon. Member who has held my office. The incident will be looked into. I have spoken to the Commissioner, who is having a meeting with the commissioners. One cannot fault the police security.police security has been stepped up in the Westminster and Whitehall area, but I ask the House to appreciate that it is difficult to deflect or stop an incident of this sort, involving a van stopping casually for a few minutes. Such an incident has not happened on our island before. We must examine it very seriously indeed to see what lessons we can learn from it.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be a wholly appropriate moment, with the aim of strengthening the common cause against terrorism, for the Opposition to change their policy and now to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

Mr. Baker: As I made clear at Question Time this afternoon, I shall be bringing forward proposals in the next few weeks to extend that Act for a further year. We

cannot lower our defences at all. The Act has worked, arid is working, effectively. When it comes before the House, it will be for Opposition Members to decide their response to it. I hope that they may this time find it in their hearts to support it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself our sense of relief at the failure of this spectacular and cowardly attack? But does he agree that many in the House and throughout the country at this time feel great solidarity with the people of Northern Ireland, who have had to suffer similar attacks but with less spectacular accompaniments?

Mr. Baker: I have considerable sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, because this is the first time that there has been a mortar bomb attack on the mainland of Great Britain, although, alas, such attacks are not unknown in Northern Ireland. In 1989 in Northern Ireland, there were 15 attacks involving a total of 81 bombs, of which 38 exploded and the rest were neutralised. We must do everything we can to discourage that form of terrorist activity on the mainland.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will the Home Secretary, in his review of this incident, check that a proper balance is being struck between closing off the whole of Whitehall while investigations necessarily take place and the need to return to normality as rapidly as possible? If it is business as usual for the Cabinet and Question Time in this House, which we wish to maintain, it should be business as usual for the public and the movement of the public as quickly as can be obtained.

Mr. Baker: The police do not wish to inconvenience the public any more than is absolutely necessary. It is an operational decision by the police, which I have discussed with them, that that part of Whitehall should still be cordoned off. They want to make absolutely certain that there are no further explosive devices. Indeed, the police would be failing in their duty if they did not do that. But my hon. Friend is right to say that, when faced with terrorism of this sort, a balance in a democracy must be struck between allowing people to go about their business as normally as they can and at the same time providing proper security. I believe that it would be a concession to terrorism to try to make the whole of central London a cordon sanitaire.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the Home Secretary aware that "Sky News" this morning ran a story that an eye witness, a doctor, saw two bodies in the van, and that that report was later carried by a London Broadcasting news programme? Are we to take it, since the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to it in his statement, that the story was bogus, or is confirmation of the report still awaited?

Mr. Baker: I cannot be responsible for what is said on "Sky News". I was aware of the report, and other reports concerning the event are being looked into by the police.

Mr. Paul Marland: I was at the Scottish Office when the attack occurred. The white van was parked at the front and the mortars landed at the back. We were not allowed out of the building at the front or the back. I wish, in praising the police and others who


came to our assistance, to praise the staff at the Scottish Office. They were cool, calm, totally controlled and cheerful, and showed great courage in a difficult situation.

Mr. Baker: The staff in the Scottish Office, the Cabinet Office and No. 10 were restricted to that area because there was a possibility of devices going off, both at the back of No. 10 and Whitehall. It takes some time to determine the position and there is always the possibility of a second vehicle in such attacks, so one must be certain before allowing people to move. I agree with my hon. Friend that the staff in all those offices have behaved well.

Mr. Donald Anderson: What is the hard evidence, other than the method of operation, that points to the IRA as the perpetrators of this outrage?

Mr. Baker: The source of my advice, from people who have dealt with such matters, is that the incident bears the hallmarks of a Provisional IRA operation because of the type of vehicle used, and the fact that the roof was cut away and there was a delivery platform fixed in the van. Such incidents are not unknown in Northern Ireland and the incident bears the hallmarks of an IRA attack.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the advisability of increasing the military presence in Whitehall above the tourist attraction of the Household Cavalry will at least be considered in the security review that he announced in his statement? Does he agree that the criticism of our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when the gates were erected at the entrance to Downing street now looks incredibly silly?

Mr. Baker: I will certainly draw the first point to the attention of the Commissioner. As I have said, a balance must be struck as to the extent of the security measures. I am certain that the gates at No. 10 were necessary and that they act as a positive discouragement to frontal attacks through Downing street.

Mr. Ron Brown: I met Mr. Ahmad Omar Amesh, the head of the Libyan interest section, this morning. The Libyan Government condemn the terrorist outrage. However, Libya also condemns the state terrorism applied to Iraq. It condemns the saturation bombing of innocent people who have no quarrel with US—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the the statement.

Mr. Brown: There is no evidence of any link with Libya. Clearly, it is easy for the media to make all sorts of snide remarks, invent stories and create the hysteria that, somehow, in some foreign country in the middle east—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough, Ron.

Mr. Brown: There is conjecture, and stories—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman can speak for which country he wishes. As he will soon no longer be speaking for the people of Scotland, he will have plenty of time to do so.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet had a narrow escape from a carefully planned attack? Is not it appropriate to thank God for their safety?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. There is no doubt that the attack was aimed to injure or kill Government Members and officials working at the heart of government. It is fortunate that the mortars did not explode on the building itself. I very much share my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Tony Banks: The whole House is obviously united in the belief that democracy will never be threatened or intimidated by mindless acts of terrorism on the streets of London. At present, cuts have either taken place or are being considered for both the London ambulance service and the London fire brigade. Given the tension that exists in London now, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at both those emergency services to ensure that they are adequate to meet all the challenges they might have to face?

Mr. Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are providing a substantial national increase next year in the amount spent upon the security forces. Certain councils and authorities may decide to make other changes, but the Government give high priority to supporting the forces of law and order. Since we have been in power, we have substantially increased the size of the police force by about 25,000. We have also substantially increased the capital spent on the fire service and the other emergency services. We shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call two more hon. Members and then we must move on.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in a terrorist war, each one of us is directly or indirectly involved? As the terrorist has to exist among us, we all can and must play a part through a much higher sense of vigilance. Does he believe that in this respect the media can play an extremely valuable educational role?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. Today's events remind all people in our country, from wherever they come, that they must be more vigilant about possible terrorist attacks, because such attacks may come from sources other than the IRA.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that the powers and penalties available to the Crown to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of terrorism and the penalties that we hope will deter would-be perpetrators of terrorism are appropriate? Is not it the case that what occurred this morning was virtually a treasonable act, in that the terrorists launched an attack against this country's elected Cabinet at a time when this country is in a state of undeclared war but real conflict against Iraq?

Mr. Baker: Every effort will be made to detect and arrest the perpetrators of this incident. We have had some success in the past few months in detecting, arresting and convicting terrorists. Following the discovery of the arms cache in Pembrokeshire in 1989, two men were arrested, convicted of explosive offences in December last year, and


each sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. On 2 October, the Wiltshire police arrested two men at Stonehenge, and they have been charged with conspiracy to murder Sir Charles Tidbury. In addition, other terrorists, or people who are alleged to be terrorists, have been arrested and will face trial. That shows that we have made some headway in the past few months in detecting and arresting terrorists.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY II FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Technology Group Bill
Committee and remaining stages of the Namibia Bill [Lords]
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
Motion on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
THURSDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (6th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Crisis in Farming". Afterwards, there will be a debate entitled "The Crisis in Fishing".
Both debates will arise on Opposition motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
FRIDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can we have some clarification from the Leader of the House about the severe weather payments changes that were announced in a most unsatisfactory way through a planted question to the Prime Minister this afternoon? On a matter of this importance, which the Opposition have repeatedly been drawing to the Government's attention, we need a proper statement from a Minister to which we can properly respond. It is not good enough, when the whole country has known perfectly well that we were heading for a period of severe weather, for the problem to be dealt with by means of crisis meetings between Ministers. We want a proper statement and a proper review of the system.
While the Government are about it, how about having a Minister from the Department of Energy at the Dispatch Box next week to explain to us that if only the energy conservation programme of the last Labour Government had remained in operation, some 6 million homes that are not insulated would now be properly insulated? Let us have an apology from a Minister on that.
Why are we having only a half-day debate on Tuesday on the British Technology Group Bill? The Government's privatisation schemes have repeatedly ripped off the taxpayer over the past 12 years. Surely we owe it to taxpayers to spend more than half a day explaining why their assets are being sold against their will.
As I or my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster, I raise the matter again with some


desperation. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said that we do not have time for such a debate. Will he now give us a specific time and date when that important matter can be debated?

Mr. MacGregor: In the light of the recent severe weather and this morning's meeting to discuss what further steps could be taken—I am talking about further steps, because the Government have taken many steps in relation to the position of the elderly and the disabled in cold weather—it was right that the House should be informed of any decision as early as possible.
Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman regards the announcement as important, as I do, he will agree that it was right to give it full prominence during Prime Minister's Questions, which many people will have been able to see on television. The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always taken a close interest in the matter. He was a Minister at the Department of Social Security and I was Chief Secretary when this policy was first developed. Many members of the Government have taken an interest in this matter. Therefore, the steps taken today are entirely right.
I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the hon. Gentleman's request about energy conservation. However, I do not think that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter next week.
The successive steps that we have taken on privatisation, of which the British Technology Group Bill is only one of many, have been extremely popular and we shall see clearly in the vote next week that this measure, too, has the support of the House. The business for next week has already been agreed, but I shall consider through the usual channels the hon. Member's point about time.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Cullen report, which I recognise is an important issue. We clearly have a lot of legislative business to get through next week, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind, because I am keen for the House to debate the report as soon as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us, and the purpose of business questions is to ask the Leader of the House about the business statement that he has announced today, not to dwell upon more general matters.

Sir Robert McCrindle: In case my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and other Ministers have reached the conclusion that all their hon. Friends agree with the proposition put forward in an early-day motion signed by some 70 of our colleagues to the effect that the financing of education should be transferred to the Exchequer, may I remind him that it continues to be the aspiration of Ministers to reduce income tax to 20p in the pound and that, in advance of any conclusions being reached on the review of the community charge, there is a strong argument in favour of having a separate debate on the whole question of the financing of education?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will know that I have taken a close interest in the matter and shall continue to do so, but I do not think that such a debate is likely to arise next week.

Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members in all parts of the House would welcome the opportunity to debate farming and fishing next week. Will the Government's statement on the hill farming review have been given by the time of that debate?
If there is to be a statement on cold weather payments to supplement the Prime Minister's welcome comments today, could it make it clear whether payments will take into account the wind chill factor? A TV weather forecast shows that, although the temperature in my constituency is minus 2 deg C which would not trigger a cold weather payment, the wind chill temperature is minus 5 deg C, which would.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's second point concerns policy, rather than the business of the House, but I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I agree that it will be useful to debate farming. Major issues confront us in the Community and in the GATT Uruguay round. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will speak in next week's debate and welcomes the opportunity that it will provide to indicate the Government's position. We are making a robust defence in the European Community against those elements of the Commission's thinking that are clearly discriminatory and which go in the wrong direction. I cannot at this stage say whether my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement about the hill livestock compensatory allowance, but I know that he will do what he can in that respect.

Sir Anthony Grant: On the resettlement grant review initiated by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agreed to refer that matter to the Top Salaries Review Board. When it reports, will my right hon. Friend undertake to lay the necessary regulations before the House at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. MacGregor: I have published in Hansard, as part of a written answer, the TSRB's revised terms of reference that resulted from last week's debate. I cannot guarantee what the Government will do with the board's report, but I certainly want the House to have an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is like being a member of a club, without the supper.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was the final questioner last week, so I am calling him earlier this week.

Mr. Skinner: That is fair. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on water privatisation and the massive increases that are burgeoning from water authorities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Severn-Trent water authority, which covers my region and many others in the north, has announced a price increase of 15·2 per cent., which it claims conforms with Government guidelines? If that is true, it is high time that the Government defended their record.

Mr. MacGregor: Water authorities are engaging in massive capital expenditure over the next 10 years to deal with environmental considerations, among other things. I


recall the hon. Gentleman emphasising the need for such action. That is one reason for any increase. Nevertheless, there will be no opportunity next week for a debate on that issue.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 394, which is in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others.
[That this House notes the increasing numbers of complaints which are being received by right honourable and honourable Members from constituents who are rightly concerned by the approach taken by the BBC and ITV companies to the reporting of events in the Gulf; regrets that at times this reporting has been irresponsible, tedious and obsessive; and believes that the continual promotion of criticism of the international coalition's policy and military strategy provides succour to Saddam Hussein.]
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the disgraceful reporting from Iran by ITV? It claims to be censored news, but ITV is showing the news that is not censored. The news from Iraq that is censored is not shown. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the broadcasting of black propaganda of that kind is distinctly unhelpful during a very difficult period?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that there is concern about that issue, among not only right hon. and hon. Members but the general public. The BBC and ITN have issued guidelines to their staff on the reporting of events in the Gulf. Perhaps that issue should fall within consideration of what kind of debates and statements on the Gulf the House should have. There is general agreement that there should be a reason for them. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend will have other opportunities to express his views, which I hope have been noted today.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement next week on the process of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement in the general agreement on tariffs and trade? As the Leader of the House knows, it is an important set of talks. The textile industry is suffering under high interest rates, jobs are being lost, there is short-time working and there is a great deal of uncertainty which needs clarification to give confidence to the industry. At the moment, the talks are concentrating on agriculture, but we should have a report on what is happening as soon as possible so that the House can be kept up to date, for the sake of the textile industry, which in Bradford alone directly employs nearly 14,000 people.

Mr. MacGregor: Without getting into details of the negotiations, the hon. Gentleman will know that discussions are going on, with a view to restarting formal negotiations as soon as possible, and that Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council earlier this week have instructed the Commission to pursue whatever action is needed, both multilaterally and bilaterally, to achieve agreement. We obviously regretted the suspension of negotiations in December. The multi-fibre arrangement, will run out at the end of this year unless agreement is reached in the GATT round. It is premature to have discussion, a debate or a statement on that aspect until we are clearer how the informal discussions are going.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Could we have an early debate on the subject of Opposition day debates? Although we ought to be very grateful to the Opposition

for their choice of subject yesterday—science and science education—which allowed us to draw attention to the Government's excellent record in these matters, unfortunately only five or six Opposition Back Benchers attended. Surely that is unsatisfactory.

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps that was because many Opposition Back Benchers recognise the Government's excellent record on science education. That is really a matter for the Opposition.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard the statements and the repetition during the Home Office statement. Therefore, bearing in mind the old saying, "The empire strikes back"—we cannot say that any longer, but the nation might strike back—could the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement next week on the principle of restoring local and parliamentary democracy to Northern Ireland? Bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said 18 years ago that Stormont was suspended to stop violence, and that six years ago the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed to stop terrorism, is not it time that parliamentary democracy was restored to Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacGregor: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman knows, engages in prolonged discussions on these matters. It was right to make a statement today, because of a specific and unprecedented event.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: As it is some while since the House debated the vexed issue of Sunday trading, could we debate it before long? The law is clearly in a mess, but equally, many people, especially those in Croydon and south London, which is a busy area, while recognising that the law needs to be changed, seek some restriction on Sunday trading, so as to maintain a little peace and quiet in a residential area. Could that subject be brought before the House quite soon, because it is important?

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the law being a mess. Equally, he will know that there is a variety of views on how that mess should be put right. In view of that, it is unlikely within the near future—I suspect, longer than the near future—that we shall devote a great deal of time to that issue on the Floor of the House with a view to specific action.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Could the Leader of the House make some provision for the House to debate London next week? Is he aware that the population of Wales is about 3 million, but there is a Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and a Welsh Question Time, and that the population of Scotland is around 5 million, but there is a Scottish Question Time? However, London, which has a population as large as those two put together, has absolutely nothing. Since the Government robbed London of its elected government, things have gone from bad to worse in the capital and we have absolutely no forum to debate such matters. Will he please do something to remedy that?

Mr. MacGregor: It is equally the case that there are substantial populations in large areas of the shire counties


of England, but we have no specific Question Time for them. We have certainly had a great deal of debate about London issues in the House in recent years and there has been a general welcome for the abolition of the Greater London council. I cannot promise a debate on that subject next week.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the future of the European Standing Committees, bearing in mind the off-hand, casual and perhaps contemptuous way in which they have been treated? Is he aware that, while one Committee spent three hours at its first sitting agreeing unanimously to an amendment to motion No. 2 on today's Order Paper, the amendment has not even been printed? Is he aware that, at the second sitting, we were invited to discuss a motion opposing a measure which the Government had agreed to without discussion two days earlier? Is he aware that we found out that a report from the Treasury Solicitor which we had requested was published two days after the Committee had discussed it? In view of all those matters, would it not be better for the Leader of the House to make a statement, rather than go through what is simply a farce and a fraud?

Mr. MacGregor: I absolutely reject the suggestion that the Committee has been treated in an off-hand manner. A great deal of time was spent on developing a new way of dealing with European Commission documents. It is important to recall that one of the reasons for so doing—and the reason why many hon. Members accepted the new Committees—was the need to ease the pressures on the House and reduce the number of occasions on which it sits for long hours after 10 pm. There was a lot of pressure on me to deal with that issue. It was one factor which we took into account when considering new methods of dealing with EC documents.
I remind my hon. Friend that when one embarks on a process with some novel aspects, one naturally wishes to review its progress. Naturally some problems may arise. I said clearly that I wished to have a proper review by the end of the summer. It is possible that certain items may arise that require that the review should take place sooner. However, we should not base our decision on just two days of sittings of the Standing Committee. We should take a little more time to see whether some aspects need to be reconsidered, which is inevitable in a new experiment.
On my hon. Friend's specific point about the motion on the Order Paper today, one learns quickly from such matters. It would be right to put on the Order Paper the motion as amended by the Committee. Therefore, the Government will not seek to move that motion this evening.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that, by failing to provide the House of Commons with an opportunity next week to debate the war in the Gulf, he is doing two things? First, he is preventing us from discussing the mass carpet bombing of Iraq, some of which is taking place from British bases. The United States former Attorney-General Ramsey Clark confirmed today that the bombing caused massive destruction in Basra and Baghdad.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is preventing a debate on the 40,000 British ground forces in the Gulf,

who are apparently about to be committed to a massive land battle in which great numbers of casualties may occur. Has the Leader of the House noticed that, in The Guardian this morning, an opinion poll showed that over a quarter of the population—more than 10 million people—are opposed to the war?
In wartime, this House must have the opportunity to hear the views of those who represent people in Fairford, those in the armed forces and, indeed, those who have an interest in a peaceful settlement of the hideous tragedy which is unfolding. Apparently the Government do not intend that Parliament should discuss it at all next week.

Mr. MacGregor: As I have often made clear, I review all the time, in consultation with my right hon. Friends, through the usual channels and through listening to the House, whether there is a need for a debate or further statement on events in the Gulf. It is important that issues that require it are brought to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have done so on a considerable number of occasions since the hostilities began. I do not anticipate announcing a statement today. If there is a requirement for an emergency debate on the Gulf, we can consider it immediately at the time.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As my right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of open government, and presumably of open opposition, may I persuade him to find some parliamentary time to debate the activities of a new secret society known as the "supper club"? Is he aware that the club apparently consists of Opposition Members who wish to meet and eat in secret to debate ways of undermining the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, for which they have voted? Could my right hon. Friend arrange by some method to have those riveting debates in the Chamber?

Mr. MacGregor: I was considering whether there is an opportunity to raise the matter next week. I cannot see one immediately, but I am sure that the ingenuity of my hon. Friend and others will ensure that the matter is raised somehow.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I must declare an interest: I am not a member of the supper club or of any other club. I know that that will come as a shock to the House.
I should like to take the Leader of the House back to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) a few moments ago. Carnage is taking place in the Gulf. There have been thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq; members of the armed forces on both sides are dying; environmental destruction is taking place; and there is enormous opposition throughout the Arab world, throughout Europe and throughout the United States to this war.
Does not the Leader of the House think that it is high time for a debate, in which all those issues, as well as the loss of liberties in this country through censorship and what I believe to be internment, could be discussed? We ought to be discussing how a peaceful political solution to the problems of the region might be found—and we ought to do so before any more people die, any more destruction takes place, or any more money is wasted on this appalling and, I believe, immoral war.

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, we have already provided a great deal of time for both debates and


statements on these matters. We recently had two very clear votes in support of the Government's aims and actions. Those votes left no doubt about the general feeling in the House. However, I repeat that I shall continue to consider whether, at any time, the House should be given a further opportunity, through either a statement or a debate, to discuss the situation.

Mr. Bob Dunn: The Leader of the House will remember that, in the interests of the people of London, we abolished the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority. That has proved to be very successful. Does my right hon. Friend know that it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to bring back the GLC and the Inner London education authority? Will he undertake to provide Government time for a debate on this important development?

Mr. MacGregor: As we have a fairly crowded programme of legislation and other matters, I do not think that there will be an opportunity for such a debate for some time.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on a recent Civil Aviation Authority report, which says that the radar system at Glasgow airport is out of date? Does the Leader of the House know that there was a near miss over Glasgow? Had a collision occurred, there would have been an absolute catastrophe. We need a statement to clarify the problem.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be a statement, but I shall discuss his point with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that nearly 80 of my hon. Friends have now added their names to early-day motion 396, may I support the request for an early debate on education finance and local government, so that the true advantages of this scheme may be properly debated and misunderstandings cleared up?
[That this House believes that, following the Government's education reforms, particularly the move towards local management and the introduction of grant maintained schools, there is now a compelling case for education funds to be provided directly from central government.]

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's very great interest in these matters, as he and I have often discussed them. I have no doubt that he will find many opportunities, in addition to the early-day motion, to state his views. In reply to his request for a debate, I have to say that, under the current review of the community charge, the options for funding local services are being considered. It would be premature to speculate on the conclusions of that review and it would therefore be premature to have a debate at this stage.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Leader of the House know how disappointing is his statement that we may not have an early debate, in Government time, on the crisis in the textile industry? That crisis covers much more than the breakdown in the GATT negotiations. Has the Leader of the House seen the press release issued by Mr. Allan Nightingale, the executive

chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance which makes it clear that, unless there is a reduction in interest rates and an improvement in the exchange rate in the very near future, the textile industry, which employs 480,000 people, will go to the wall completely?

Mr. MacGregor: There was a debate before Christmas in which textile matters were raised. We have also held a number of economic and industrial debates. I have already made the position clear in relation to the GATT Uruguay round. The hon. Gentleman referred to economic issues and the exchange rate. I draw his attention to the fact that there is to be a debate on the economy next Wednesday.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the continuing unrest and conflict in the Baltic states and in other republics of the Soviet Union, and given the growing concern that certain elements of the armed forces in the Soviet Union may have deliberately reneged on the conventional and even the strategic arms agreements, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for the House to have an early opportunity to debate such important matters, which affect the security of the west?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly understand the great importance of my hon. Friend's points and I shall bear them in mind.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Leader of the House aware of the strength of feeling in fishing communities about the statutory instrument that imposes an eight-day continuous tie-up? Given that their main opposition relates to safety—that lives could be endangered by the terms of the statutory instrument—will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that an early debate on that statutory instrument takes place on the Floor of the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity to debate all those matters next week.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend knows that, under the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989, the security service commissioner is required, within 12 months of the Act being passed, to supply an annual report to the House. It was due on 18 December 1990, but it has still not been published. I am very surprised that it is not to be debated next week. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the report will be published as quickly as possible under the terms of the Act?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into my hon. Friend's point and write to him.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement next week, in which he can either confirm or deny that he has issued directions to health authorities to postpone operations that require long-stay treatment in hospital until after the Gulf war? I have received complaints from two constituents. One requires a hip replacement and the other a knee operation. They have been told by the Woodlands hospital in Bradford that they cannot have the operations they need until after the Gulf war.
Many people believe and argue that beds and wards that have been closed temporarily and permanently should


be reopened so that Gulf casualties can be treated in them, and constituents such as mine can have the operations that they urgently need. Will the Leader of the House take urgent steps to ensure that constituents know whether their operations will have to be postponed and can also be confident that Gulf casualties will be treated properly?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government have already made it clear that the national health service should get sufficient notice of casualties to enable hospitals to cope without having to empty beds in advance. The Government are meeting the full cost to the NHS of Gulf casualties. Therefore, health authorities will be able to use all their normal allocations for their normal work load. There should be no break in non-Gulf emergency work. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the specific cases that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. John Bowis: While our thoughts are rightly concentrated on the Gulf—my right hon. Friend has said that there will be statements, as necessary, about the Gulf war—will he also remember that events in other parts of the world cause great concern to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House? My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred to the Baltic states. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two other areas? Yugoslavia's problems may lead to instability in central and southern Europe because of the disunity of the Government in that country. There has been a total collapse of government in Somalia. Understandably, that matter concerns many of our constituents.

Mr. MacGregor: I accept my hon. Friend's point. However, there have been statements and debates on issues affecting other parts of the world. That was the case fairly recently with Somalia. I am aware of these concerns, but it is a question of how much time we can devote to them when there are so many other problems to address.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 433 concerning Lewis's stores and the 6,500 jobs at stake in many cities of our country.
[That this House regrets that Lewis's the department store group, went into receivership on Thursday 31st January; notes that over 6,500 jobs are at stake in areas of high unemployment like Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Stoke, Leeds and Leicester; and requests the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to have urgent talks with the Chairman of NatWest Bank in order to provide a life-line whilst the search for a suitable buyer continues.]
Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to have urgent talks with the chairman of NatWest bank to see whether a lifeline can be thrown to them? Will he also tell his right hon. Friend that high interest charges are the cause of many problems, particularly in the north-west of England where companies are going to the wall?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to look at the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have heard what he said and will look into it. I cannot make any

promises about debates, but some of the economic matters could have been addressed in recent debates and they can be mentioned in the debate on Wednesday.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House been able to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an oral statement on the privatisation of the transport section of the Crown Suppliers, in the light of early-day motion 364, which is in my name, and which deals with the activities and irregularities of Mr. Bill Pinkney, the chap who is supposed to be buying the transport section?
[That this House notes a series of parliamentary replies from the Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the Environment, dated 24th January relating to the sale of Crown Suppliers transport section and investigations into the activities of civil servant Mr. Bill Pinkney the prospective buyer; notes the evasive nature of the Ministerial reply, Official Report, column 27, which refers to 'the Crown Suppliers following up the matters arising from that audit'; notes that under the general heading of 'Disciplinary matters', the Crown Suppliers after a full investigation in 1990 did find that the level of Mr. Pinkney's behaviour fell below the level which was expected of an official; notes that the investigation found overpayments, dubious entries, unauthorised payments and a failure to declare a conflict of interest with a company called Turnbulls; notes that the Chief Executive of Crown Suppliers did consider formal charges but decided not to proceed with them as Ministers did not wish to prejudice the sale of the transport section to Mr. Bill Pinkney and his associates; notes that attempts by senior civil servants under instruction from Ministers to hide away the nature of irregularities and disciplinary offences were orchestrated so as to avoid embarrassment to the Government: questions the role of Shandwick, the public relations company, in preparing grossly misleading press releases relating to the sell off to a so-called management buy-out which is not a buy-out at all but an offer funded by a North of England second hand car dealer; and unreservedly condemns Ministers for their shameful actions.]
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that that man, together with others, will not be allowed to purchase that organisation? He is not a fit and proper person to have that right.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raised this matter last week and I have nothing to add to the fairly long reply that I gave him then.

Mr. John McFall: Many people at this time find it unacceptable that the United Nations Security Council is not in permanent session to discuss the Gulf war. Given that, for the first time in the history of this nation, the Government cited a higher authority—the United Nations—in the issue of whether to go to war, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week on why the proposition from the five Maghreb countries and India was refused? Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the United Nations is in permanent session to discuss this matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made clear the position in relation to statements and debates in the House on the


Gulf. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's specific points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week to discuss councillors' allowances and expenses? I raise this because Councillor Bill Axon, a regional councillor in Midlothian, has been accused by the media of coming to London for a hymn service and misusing public funds and so on. Whatever the merits or otherwise of his argument, as I understand it he was here for a good reason.
I speak as an ex-regional councillor and I feel, on behalf of colleagues elsewhere, that there should be a proper way of funding visits to London by members of a local authority. Let us discuss this next week and ensure that people on local authorities are paid properly, so that the media cannot use stories such as that to which I have referred simply to attack visits that have been entered into for good reasons.

Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing of this case, but, bearing in mind the wide and important matters that hon. Members have been raising with me which I am not able to accommodate next week, I see no possibility of a debate on that matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, during next week's welcome debate on farming, his robust friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes a statement on the condition of the knackery industry? Unless some urgent action is taken to help that industry, much of it will go into liquidation and thousands of sheep and cattle carcases will be left littering the countryside of

Scotland, Wales and England, resulting in danger from diseases such as anthrax and others. It is a grave crisis. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is a statement next week?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the importance of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister will have many issues to address in his speech, but I shall ensure that the Minister who replies to the debate is aware that the hon. Gentleman is likely to raise this matter.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House try to find time next week for the House to discuss the Prime Minister's rather misleading reply in respect of cold weather payments? The Prime Minister stated accurately that there were no severe weather payments under the Labour Government. There were not, but there were exceptional needs payments and also an electricity discount scheme, which were far more generous than the cheeseparing scheme that the Government currently operate. While the Prime Minister did not lie to the House, he misled the House. It would be helpful to have a debate to clear the matter up.

Mr. MacGregor: It is important to recognise that the Government have introduced not just cold weather payments but other schemes, such as expenditure on heating additions under supplementary benefit, which have since been incorporated in the income support rates. In relation to the elderly and the disabled, undoubtedly a great deal more expenditure is undertaken by the Government in addition to cold weather payments. I think that that was the point which my right hon. Friend was hammering home.

Orders of the Day — Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I would never question your judgment, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look again at the non-selection of new clauses 3 and 5. I do not think that the Social Security Act 1990 was taken into consideration. In that Act provisions were slipped in which were not debated because of the guillotine but which debarred hundreds of thousands of industrially deaf people from being able to claim compensation. New clauses 3 and 5 were intended to put that right. I hope that consideration can be given to those people who, not because of sleight of hand but because of that addition to the 1990 Act, were debarred from claiming justifiable compensation.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, but this is a very narrow Bill. Having considered carefully new clauses 3 and 5, I regret that I had to come to the conclusion that they were beyond the scope of this Bill.

Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: new Clauses, new Schedules, Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Clauses 5 to 7, Schedule 3, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 4, Clauses 11 to 15.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

New Clause 1

PAYMENTS FROM THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND

'.—(1) Recipients of the highest rate of the care component oif the disability living allowance shall be entitled to a community care supplement payable out of the National Insurance Fund.
(2) The weekly rate of the community care supplement shall depend on the individual circumstance of a severely disabled person. In particular it shall depend on the extent to which he is severely restricted in his ability to perform normal personal care and domestic tasks because of his disablement, on the extent of his need for help, attention or supervision from another person, on the cost of securing the required help, attention or supervision, and on such factors as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(i) a community care supplement shall not be payable in addition to a payment from the Independent Living Fund;
(ii) providing his circumstances qualify him for a payment from the Independent Living Fund, a community care supplement shall be payable to a severely disabled person in lieu of such a payment when the payment ceases on the expiry of the life of the Independent Living Fund Trust on or before 8th June 1993; and
(iii) payment of the community care supplement shall be disregarded for the purposes of assessing housing benefit and community charge benefit.'.—[Mr. Hannam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I and other members of the all-party disablement group tabled the new clause to open up the debate on community care payments to enable severely disabled people to remain living in the community in their own homes. The new clause seeks to end the uncertainty about the future of the independent living fund, to fulfil the general desire to bring the payments more into line with social security disability benefits and to enable us to talk about meeting the crucial need for an alternative means of helping severely disabled people when independent living fund payments cease in 1993.
A theme running through several of the debates today will be the extra cost facing severely disabled people and the need to ensure that the costs are properly provided for in the benefit system. When the social security benefit reforms went through in 1986 and the system of additional cost payments was abolished, a worrying gap opened which threatened the community care programme as it affected severely disabled people. That is why the independent living fund was created and why it is vital that the uncertainty surrounding its future should be removed.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on managing to secure £62 million this year for the independent living fund. The fund is highly successful in enabling severely disabled people to live independently in the community. It is an innovation, providing money directly to disabled people to enable them to buy in their own personal care and assistance services and to have maximum personal control over their living arrangements. Such a system, on a statutory basis, is central to any philosophy of independent living. Similar systems exist in Scandanavia. The basic philosophy of individual control over care arrangements is working well for many disabled people because of the money that they are receiving from the fund. Local authorities never have been, and never will be, able to provide that flexibility.
The fund helps more than 6,000 severely disabled people. The average payment is about £74 a week, and the highest payment is up to £400 a week. The trust deeds come to an end in April 1993, when the Government propose simply to transfer the fund to local authorities.
It is important to remind the House how the fund came into existence. During the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, much concern was expressed by disability organisations and by Members of all parties about the loss of additional requirements payments, in particular the domestic assistance allowance. At the 11th hour, the Government responded to our concern by setting up the independent living fund. I feel an awful sense of déjà vu, because April 1993 is approaching but no new arrangements are being made for severely disabled people. There will be an 11th hour panic as 6,000 severely disabled people, who currently receive payments from the fund, begin to make urgent representations to their Members of Parliament. I remind hon. Members that that figure represents about 10 for each constituency.
In Committee, the Minister said:
It is inconceivable that on one day in April 1993 the whole of its case load will move over to the local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 1990; c. 63.]


I strongly urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that he will seriously consider setting up the ILF on a statutory basis. It would be stupid to have another panic such as we had in April 1988.
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to recommendations 11 and 12 in the ninth report of the Select Committee on Social Services, entitled "Social Security for Disabled People." It states:
We continue to regard the ILF as an innovation that has enabled some disabled people to make community care work well … We further believe that the Government should consider the establishment of the Independent Living Fund as a statutory body.
Those comments carry weight and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who is a member of that Select Committee, would like to add his comments.
In a sense, the fund has been a victim of its own success. The enforced restriction of the fund to disabled people in receipt of the higher rate attendance allowance and who are aged between 16 and 74 has meant that potential applicants have been losing out and there has been a drop in new applicants to the fund.
In Committee, the Minister responded by stating that he envisaged that the local authorities would undertake the vast majority of cases after 1993. I point out to the House that the supposedly watertight statutory duties to assess and meet the needs of disabled people may come under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 imposes no stronger statutory duties than are contained in section 2.
From our long experience of working with disabled people and their organisations, we know that local authorities fulfil only statutory duties. I cannot realistically envisage that one day in April 1993 all local authorities will suddenly, magically, assess and provide individually tailored packages of care for severely disabled people in the way that payments from the ILF do. Most fundamentally, the ILF gives disabled people control over their own care arrangements, arranging care at the limes when they need it, not at the times that the local authority is able to provide it. I must point out that usually they are unable to provide that care after the hours of darkness, when extra care and help often is needed.
I should be most reluctant to see the flexibility that is now in place disappear. Unless there is clear action and commitment from the Government to place the ILF on a statutory basis, one day in April 1993, 6,000 severely disabled people will begin to lose their payments from the fund.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which I reiterate. Local authorities often have differing and competing priorities. If money is simply transferred to focal authorities, what guarantee will there be that it will not disappear into child protection, into road mending or into other priorities? We recently heard of one authority that is sacking five occupational therapists so that it can afford to meet its responsibilities under the Children Act 1989. I should like to place it on record that I oppose the transfer of the fund to local authorities because there is no evidence that they will be able to provide the high level of support that the fund now provides so successfully and because it

will be perfectly legal for local authorities to divert the resources intended by central Government for disabled people into completely unrelated areas.
When we press for change to social security Bills, we are often told, "It is a matter of resources." All political parties recognise that disabled people and carers need more resources and that this cannot be achieved overnight. However, the argument is different with the independent living fund because the money has already been allowed for in the budget. Disabled people will lose out if the fund is stopped. I know some disabled people who are terrified about what could happen in 1993. They have tasted independent living and enjoyed a basic human right that we all take for granted. They are fearful at the prospect of being forced into institutional care and now face two years of uncertainty.
I will give an example. Before the introduction of the fund, James, who is paralysed from the neck down, received all his care from his mother aged 82. He now receives a large payment from the fund which enables him to live independently, but what will his future be? For other disabled people, the fund allows payment for much-needed respite. One parent received a payment from the fund which enabled her to buy in two hours of care a week which allowed her a break from caring for her severely mentally handicapped daughter. Uncertainty about the future payments from the fund is causing disruption because disabled people cannot make long-term care arrangements as they cannot rely on those payments continuing.
The Government rightly promote community care. The fund enables many disabled people to make a reality of that care. Does not my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is absurd to propose to wind up the fund that enables severely disabled people to live independently? I urge the Government to follow the recommendation of the former Select Committee on Social Services to place the fund on a statutory basis. This group of severely disabled people must be provided for. They cannot face institutional care. The Government recognised that and provided for it in 1988 and that provision must continue. There must be no question of existing beneficiaries losing out.
I look forward to a positive response from my right hon. Friend. At this stage, I hope for a reassurance at the very least that existing beneficiaries will continue to receive payments. The Minister is familiar with the work of the all-party disablement group and its continued representation on issues such as the mobility allowance and benefit for deaf students. In both cases, the Minister responded positively.
The issue of the ILF will not go away. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will receive representations from hon. Members of all parties when their constituents begin to face uncertainty. If some of that uncertainty can be lifted, we shall be happy to let members of our all-party group in another place pursue the nuts and bolts of a proper arrangement.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to speak from the Dispatch Box for the first time on this important and serious matter, and especially to support the all-party disablement group, its many eminent members who are here today, and their new clause, which follows that moved by my right hon. Friend the Member


for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). He has done more than hold my hand over the past few days while I have been working my way into this complex Bill.
I know of the interest of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in this issue and I concur with many of his remarks. He rightly said that the new clause would put the independent living fund on a statutory basis and, above all, safeguard the payments from that fund which are currently made to severely disabled people. Sadly, the new clause is necessary because the Government appear confused and uncertain about the future of the ILF.
4.45 pm
We all know that the deeds that created the charity—the ILF—expire on 8 June 1993. If the new clause does nothing else, I hope that it will smoke out the Government and give them the opportunity to make clear the future of the ILF and, above all, the future of those people who desperately need it or whatever takes its place. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity today.
There is great strength of feeling behind the new clause which is shown both by the fact that it is tabled by the all-party disablement group and by the presence of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and other members of the former Select Committee on Social Services who propose that the ILF should be placed on a statutory basis. I hope that the Government will listen to the bodies that speak for disabled people, to parties of all complexions and to Parliament itself which found its voice through the former Social Services Select Committee.
The fund was set up to rectify the mistakes caused by the recklessness of the Social Security Act 1986, which left many severely disabled people as losers under what was then the new income support scheme. The ILF was not a spontaneous act of generosity by the Government. It was an attempt to make good some of the damage that they wrought in their social security expenditure changes in 1986 which were implemented in 1988. Having removed an essential provision, the Government rightly sought to put that right, at least in part.
The philosophical problem facing the Government is that they appear to regard severely disabled people as a public expenditure problem. The issue will not go away. Severely disabled people will not be reshuffled and will not disappear because of the 1986 Act, the ILF, a fancy agency or whatever takes the place of the ILF. A new answer must be devised which commands all-party support, which will stick and which will be for the benefit of severely disabled people.
The latest Government wheeze is to shuffle this "problem" over to local authorities under the community care policy and to hive off responsibility ever further until they can say, "This is somebody else's baby. It is not our responsibility." Whatever institutional rearrangement the Government come up with, the demand of severely disabled people for basic assistance to meet their obvious fundamental right to live independently as far as possible will reassert itself. The Government must understand that that fundamental need will not be organised away.
The ILF started with £5 million a year. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, next year it will have £62 million. Even that figure entails rejecting nearly three quarters of the applications received and restricing the original criteria

to those who are over 16 or under 74 years old. Anyone who is not on the higher-rate attendance allowance is also disqualified.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, the ILF is threatened by its very success. That underlines the need for the fund or a successor body. Who knows what is the unmet demand from among the 6,000 disabled people in the United Kingdom? The answer to that frightens the Government and motivates their search for someone—anyone but the Government—to administer a scheme such as this. In Committee, the Minister said:
After 1993, the generality of cases should go to local authorities. There will obviously be a need for some interim arrangement to deal with the existing load of the ILF . . There will have to be some transitional provision and there may be some provision for new cases. I am not able to go much further than that today".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 1990; c. 63.]
In the two months that have elapsed since the Minister said that, perhaps he has had a chance to think about what will happen next for those with severe disability. I invite him to tell the House those thoughts.

Sir David Price: I shall be brief, being aware of the desire of hon. Members to make progress due to circumstances outside the House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. This is a good subject on which to make one's first appearance there because the issue rightly produces harmony across the Floor of the House. I am pleased that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to the report of the Social Services Committee, and, as it is clear that hon. Members present today have read it, I need say little about it.
Attention was drawn to our second recommendation in the part of the report dealing with the independent living fund, which was to put it on a permanent basis. I need not rehearse the arguments, but I draw attention to our other recommendation, which was based on this quotation from the chairman of the trustees of the fund, the admirable Mrs. Winifred Tumim:
We would agree that there is an enormous amount, a huge amount, of unmet need and a vast amount of misery which is not being attended to. As trustees, obviously, we cannot do more than administer the resources in the most equitable way we can.
All who have been involved over the years with the severely disabled know that what Mrs. Tumim said is true, so it was not surprising that our first recommendation under that part of the report stated:
We recommend that the Independent Living Fund be provided with additional resources specifically to collect more detailed information about the characteristics of applications to and awards from the Fund, and that the Government should use this information to help plan the development of social security benefits for disabled people.
That is a reasonable recommendation. We are concerned with an evolving scene. Other reports have produced more information, and it is clear that we do not know it all. Anyone who thinks that it is a static situation and who suggests that we need only upgrade for inflation does not understand the scale of the issue with which we are trying to deal. I hope that the Minister will respond to both recommendations, which appear to command the support of the majority of the House.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I was sorry to miss the opening speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who has done much work on behalf of the


independent living fund. The new clause is about a small group of special people who are particularly and severely disabled. Their struggle is unbelievable—in many ways, beyond the imagination of many of us.
Hon. Members will recall the contribution of Mary Greaves, the director of the Disablement Income Group. She told me that it took hours for her to prepare simply to go out to a meeting—to get dressed, bathed, leave home and get into the car—activities that we perform easily when we come to the House. As I say, the effort required by them is extraordinary and is unimaginable by able-bodied people. We should keep people such as Mary Greaves in mind as we decide whether to accept this new clause.
The Minister should remember that, by agreeing to the new clause, he would help not only the disabled but himself, because he knows, being a statistician, that he will, as a Minister, have to find much more to keep them in institutions rather than it would cost to allow them their independence.
Local authorities are not the appropriate organisations to provide the type of provision that is given by the independent living fund. Indeed, they are the last bodies to wish to undertake the task, because local authorities always provide funds for popular causes. The severely disabled are not a popular cause in that sense. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the common sense embodied in the new clause, which would then clearly be approved by the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I too support the new clause, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for missing his speech. I was caught by the starting gun in dashing through the snow to get here. I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and congratulate him on his initial performance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that it was the first of many, and I am sure that we shall co-operate on cross-party lines on other issues such as that being discussed today.
The Minister heard many of the arguments in Committee and I shall not rehearse them again. I believe that in his heart he has sympathy with the direction in which we wish to go. I hope on a day such as this, when we are reminded of the importance of making provision for disabled people, that the Minister will meet the points embodied in the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I too hope that the Minister will find a way to accept the new clause. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that the people we are referring to are not a popular group. Although small in number, they comprise an important group who elicit public support well beyond their numbers.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to the Dispatch Box—in taking part in a debate rather than asking questions—and wish him well. No man who could remove Gary Sobers twice in a fortnight from the wicket can be bereft of a certain quality. I congratulate him on that and on his succession to the Opposition Front Bench. Although in the summer we played in the same team together, whereas now

we are condemned to be on opposing sides, I hope that the spirit that was engendered on those earlier occasions will pervade our discussions.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in no sense do I regard the troubles of, or individuals who suffer from, severe disability as a problem. Our job, as the Government and as a legislature, is to see this as an opportunity to enable disabled people to enjoy a quality of life that has been denied their predecessors and many of them.
Much has happened. I will not go over the ground that I have covered on other occasions in saying why I believe that the next 10 years will be important in terms of improving the quality of life and accessibility of disabled people to opportunities in employment, leisure and independent living that the rest of us can take for granted.
I am anxious to play my part to the greatest possible extent in bringing that about, and I know, because of the all-party Select Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) play an important part, that, when hon. Members discuss these issues, they do not discuss them on a partisan basis. We want genuinely to help people with disabilities. Perhaps I run some gentle danger elsewhere in Government if I say that I welcome the pressure that I am frequently put under by hon. Members in urging me to do still better.
We are discussing, in particular, the independent living fund. I take a personal interest, and some satisfaction, in the way in which the ILF has developed and expanded. I recall approaching the present Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury to persuade him to produce £5 million for the fund, whereas the budget this year is £62 million. It has been a great success, not least because it has identified a real need in the community and gives disabled people the chance to exercise control over the provision made for them. It ensures that they are not simply told that somebody can come at a particular time of day that suits the timetable of the social services department. Instead, choice can be exercised about the nature and extent of the care that they are given.
I should like to underline the compliment paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) to Mrs. Tumim and the other trustees of the independent living fund. I doubt whether any of them realised the extent of the work that they were undertaking when they took on the responsibility. They have carried out that work with sympathy, flexibility and imagination. I congratulate the chairman and, although it is invidious to pick out a single trustee, make a special mention of Pauline Thompson of the Disablement Income Group, who has played a most constructive role in the affairs of the independent living fund since its introduction.
5 pm
I recognise that the new clause is a device to obtain assurances about the long-term future of the independent living fund, but I am bound to say a word or two about the merits of the new clause. The most satisfactory way forward is not to put it on a statutory, regulated basis. By 1993–94, we expect that the adjudication officers in our Department will be making about 20,000 decisions a week on disability living allowance. They will thus have to be very much concerned with the regulations for that benefit.
One of the most important parts of the magic of the ILF is that trained social workers make individual visits, go in some depth into the needs of disabled people and come up


with a package to meet those needs. However worthy our staff are in the Department of Social Security, because of the pressure under which they are working, 1 doubt whether they could provide such attention and sympathy to the needs of individual disabled people in the same way as the ILF provides at present.
I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about the ability of local authorities to pick up those cases. I reiterate that, as the ILF has been running in recent years, I have been worried about the number of local authorities that have, in essence, been passing on cases to the ILF that should properly have been the responsibility of local authority social services departments. It has been an easy option for them to take when there are other priorities competing for their budgets.
I stand by what I said in Committee, that I believe that the vast majority of cases that, at present, are the responsibility—

Mr. Ashley: If the Minister feels unable to accept the new clause, will he give strong guidance on the fund to local authorities?

Mr. Scott: We still have two years before it is contemplated that the Griffths proposals on community care will be introduced. The vast majority of cases presently being handled by the independent living fund should then be able to be handled by local authorities. I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for guidance when that change is made, so that local authorities are conscious of their responsibilities.
The words that I used in Committee were carefully chosen. Although I take seriously the points that have been made today about the future position of people currently being helped by the ILF and understand anxieties—many people have communicated them directly to me—now I can say only that we wish to look most closely at the proposed arrangements that will come into effect in 1993, the timetable for the transfer of cases and any transitional arrangements necessary. Without wishing to sound arrogant, I hope that, given my track record of launching the ILF and seeing its successful expansion, hon. Members will accept my assurance that I wish to be satisfied about the practical effects of the arrangements.

Mr. Allen: Although I accept that the Minister cannot give a firm date or set of organisational arrangements today, will he offer some encouragement by saying when he will make announcements so that hon. Members and people who work for disabled groups can make representations to him and work towards that proposed date?

Mr. Scott: That is difficult, because of the natural decision-making processes in Government. There must be discussion and, apart from the purse strings aspect, the arrangements will involve local government, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I want to announce, as soon as possible, the arrangements that will come into effect after 1993, not least because I know of the anxieties that many people on the ILF are feeling, and I do not wish unduly to delay that process.

Mr. Hannam: I wish to deal more with the present than the future. My right hon. Friend is aware of the problems caused by the restricted criteria presently applied to the ILF, especially the upper age limit. I understand that the trustees were looking at the restrictive criteria. Does my right hon. Friend know whether changes could be made to make matters easier?

Mr. Scott: I met a number of the trustees of the ILF yesterday to discuss a variety of matters. During the meeting, they said that they were going to lift the restriction on the upper age eligibility for the ILF from 1 March this year. I hope that that will be seen as a positive step.
I have listened carefully to the points made by several hon. Members. I understand the anxieties and am keen to put them at rest as soon as possible. For the moment, I rest on the words that I used in Committee.

Mr. Hannam: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for summing up the debate as he has, and I hope that we shall be able to pursue the subject in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the new clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

`Claims for the following benefits may be made by an authorised representative of the claimant as provided in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—

(a) Disability Living Allowance; and
(b) Disability Working Allowance.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I sense the mood of the House, so I shall be as brief as possible.
I was delighted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and to see him at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that his appointment was richly deserved.
The new clause attempts to draw the attention of the House to the fact that section I of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, despite its considerable merits and having been unanimously endorsed by both Houses before Royal Assent, has still not been implemented. Having looked at some of the Hansard Committee reports, I do not believe that some of the explanations we received address the merits of the strong argument in favour of representation.
If the principle being applied to disability living and working allowances is to have any meaning for some of the most disadvantaged within our society, the provision simply will not work. We shall not have the safety net that we are all supposed to endorse if section 1 of the 1986 Act does not provide appropriate representation and advocacy. That is why organisations like Mencap, MIND and Deaf Accord strongly and firmly campaign for the very thing that the new clause advocates. That is why the 40 organisations that got together under the Act Now group are demanding that we have representation and advocacy. They do so not only because it works where they


have seen it, but because they know that the social security system will not apply to some of those most in need, which would be regrettable in the extreme.
If we cannot extend the social security system to all those who are entitled to benefit, including those with disabilities, we are denying a basic human right. Our system of social security payments, including the payments addressed by the Bill, is so complex and daunting that it is absurd to expect some of the most disabled people in our society, including the mentally handicapped and profoundly mentally handicapped, to understand it. The new clause seeks to go further than simply paying lip service, as the Government seem to do time after time, to section 1 and representation and advocacy, and it gives the House and the Government the opportunity to give those matters real meaning.
From my reading of Hansard, I understand that, in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State seemed to think that regulation 33 addressed this matter. In all candour, it does not. The Government seem to think that voluntary work is important in modern times, but none of the voluntary organisations accepts that regulation 33 is adequate. How can it be when councils such as Surrey refuse to deal with appointees, or when the Minister seemed to address all her thinking to tribunals? We want to make sure that all the assistance that we can possibly give to, for example, profoundly mentally handicapped people is given long before the time when a tribunal might even be necessary.
We address these problems in the light of all our discussions about community care. Although we might disagree about how such care is being implemented, I do not think that any hon. Member doubts that community care is about choice. If we fail to address their problems, how can we give choice to people who do not have representation and who perhaps cannot understand the system and could not possibly fill in the necessary application forms?
Fundamental to providing choice to people within community care is getting their income right. Income is important for us all. It is important to business people who can employ accountants and lawyers, and there is no reason to block opportunities for some of the most profoundly disabled people in our society. They must have the degree of representation and advocacy that the new clause would provide.
Organisations such as MIND have enormous experience in this field. It has told us that the proprietors of some residential homes are exercising the advocacy and representation role, but not in the way that is in the interests of the disabled person, whose rights and needs are paramount. That is an entirely unacceptable way to administer a system of social security and to deal with people's income. This is our opportunity to correct that.
Organisations such as Deaf Accord and SENSE rightly remind us of the very few deaf-blind who benefit from our social security system. There is clear evidence that that happens because, sadly, many such people do not understand or do not have the interpreters or the advocacy that I and most of my hon. Friends believe are essential if we are to address their problems, and especially those of the deaf-blind.
I think that the House supported the principle of advocacy and representation in section 1 of the 1986 Act, because it saw the simple justice of doing that and the need for efficiency. Many people might even have thought that

we cannot be caring and compassionate without an element of efficiency. There is an interesting programme on BBC Television tonight, just a week before the second anniversary of the sad death of Beverley Lewis. I understand that the programme will conclude that, had the representation provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 been fully implemented, that tragic story might have been avoided.
We must learn the lessons of history which time after time have been brought to our attention in the House and elsewhere. Because I believe that representation and advocacy are as important in social security as in the health service, local government services, housing and elsewhere, I invite the Minister to welcome the new clause. At this late stage, I invite the Government to endorse the principle of advocacy, which we understood had been unanimously agreed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I join in the congratulations from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. All I can add is that so felicitous and impressive a start to his Front-Bench work came as no surprise to me.
Turning to the new clause, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) did a superb service to disabled people by his work to enact, with wide all-party support, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. His work deserved much better than the shameful dilatoriness with which the implementation of the Act has been handled by the Government. Having legislated in this field as a private Member, I am well placed to assess the importance of my hon. Friend's work. I hold him and his achievement in the very highest regard.
As we have heard, sections 1 to 3 of the Act are still unimplemented. They are fundamental to the Act's humane purposes. They affect millions of people with disabilities—physical, mental and sensory alike. They are also profoundly important to millions of carers. It really is outrageous that crucial sections of that Act are still unimplemented more than four and a half years after Royal Assent.
I ask for a statement from the Under-Secretary of State about the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of sections 1 to 3. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, this is very much a Beverley Lewis amendment. It is thus of deep significance to some of the most severely disabled people in this country. I hope that we can have a positive response from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the plea for a positive response. I was a sponsor of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and was delighted when it went through the House. It was three more years before we were able to get a similar Act for Northern Ireland. I understand that, as they were private Members' Bills, they did not necessarily commit the Government to expenditure. We understand some of the problems, but five years on in a Government Bill the disabled deserve the advantage of advocacy. I have heard no arguments in the House or outside among


practitioners denying the validity of the argument that the clause should be accepted. I lend my voice to those of hon. Members urging the Government to make a positive statement.

Mr. Ashley: If a disabled person is unable to speak for himself, it is unjust to deny him or her the right to have somebody else to speak for him.
It is deplorable—I choose my words carefully—that the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act have not been implemented. Acceptance of this new clause would go some little way towards consoling my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Wigley: I support the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), with whom I had the pleasure of co-operating during the passage of his Bill. It is now almost five years since that Bill was enacted and many disabled people find it difficult to understand why at least the parts of that Act which we are debating have not been implemented. Points were made in Committee about cost and the Minister may be in a position tonight to give the House more information about the cost of implementing clauses 1, 2 and 3 of that Act.
But more relevant to the new clause is whether its provisions are adequately covered by any other part of the Bill. I do not believe that they are. If the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I shall be glad to hear from her. If she accepts that they are not, will she, at the very least, give an undertaking that if and when the first three sections of the 1986 Act come to full fruition there will be adequate interplay between that Act and this Bill to ensure that the full force of those provisions can be used in relation to the new benefits that will come from this Bill? That is the very minimum that we should expect by way of commitment from the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I add my congratulations to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his elevation to the Front Bench. I look forward to many confrontations and useful discussions with him in the future.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the way in which he moved the new clause. I honour and respect the reasons that he advanced for so moving it. When it was discussed in Committee in a similar form considerable eloquence and feeling were displayed in the arguments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
But I have to tell the House that this addition to the Bill simply is not necessary. In doing so, I do not mean to imply any criticism of the measure that has been introduced, or to question in any way the importance of representation for people with disabilities.
The Government accept completely that somebody who cannot speak for himself should be represented in the important matter of claims for benefit. But that is no reason to give the authorised representatives envisaged by section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act a specific role in relation to

disability living allowance and disability working allowance which are the scope of this Bill. I shall advance reasons why it would be undesirable to do so.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) rather dismissed my statement in Committee that the matter of appointees was already satisfactorily covered by regulation 33 of the social security claims and payments regulations. The evidence that he adduced for doing so was that certain county councils, specifically Surrey, were unwilling to deal with appointees.
We are discussing claims for benefits and that is what is covered by regulation 33. The Department of Social Security, our local offices and tribunals and all those concerned in any way with claims for benefits are happy to recognise, and must under this regulation so recognise, the role of appointees. If county councils are not willing to deal with appointees in community care matters, that is not within the scope of the Bill.
I am by no means dismissing what the right hon. Gentleman says—it is important—but that is effectively a matter for community care legislation through the Department of Health and I undertake to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. But in terms of benefits, towards which the Bill is directed, regulation 33 fully covers the disabled person's need for representation where there is an appointee. Where there is no appointee, representations are still accepted from people who are clearly acting on the claimant's behalf. There is also statutory provision for claimants to be represented at appeal tribunals.
The new clause would in effect give authorised representatives the same right to make claims for disabled living allowance and disabled working allowance as appointees. It is quite unnecessary to duplicate the appointee provisions. There is, of course, no reason at all why an authorised representative should not also be an appointee and in many cases it would be sensible and desirable for one person to carry out both functions. But for that to happen, it would be necessary only for the authorised representative to apply to be an appointee in the normal way. It is not necessary to give the authorised representative a separate right to make claims.
It could be argued that authorised representatives should have an automatic right to act and not have to rely on the normal appointee provisions. I disagree, for two main reasons. First, there may be occasions when it would be better for the functions of appointee and authorised representative to be carried out by different people. It is easy to imagine, for example, a case where a person has been acting as an appointee for benefit purposes for some time, and so is well placed to look after a claim for DLA, but is unwilling or is not best equipped to take on the additional and wider responsibilities of authorised representative. At the very least, there must be flexibility to cater for that possibility. If legislation contained a presumption in favour of the authorised representative, as is proposed, there would be less flexibility and the arrangements that resulted might not be the best in the circumstances of an individual case.
Perhaps more importantly, the idea of an authorised representative is not identical to that of an appointee. A disabled person does not need to be unable to act to have an authorised representative. We have concentrated tonight on those disabled people who are unable to speak for themselves and to act on their own behalf. But there are those who are not, strictly speaking, unable to act and


there would therefore certainly be cases where disabled people were perfectly capable of making their own claims and would not want their authorised representatives to do it for them. In that situation, it might be assumed that the authorised representative would always defer to the wishes of the disabled person and that there would be no problem, but I would not wish to rely on that assumption. In any case, it would be wrong to take away through legislation the rights of disabled people to act for themselves—an effect that hon. Members may not have intended but that could result.
I am equally sure that hon. Members were motivated not by doubts about the effectiveness of the appointee procedures, but largely by a desire to press for the implementation of the remaining sections of the 1986 Act —a matter which has been raised by several hon. Members tonight. On that point, I repeat what I said in Committee. The Department of Health has recently consulted the local authority associations about the cost of implementing the sections and hon. Members will be delighted to know that a full statement will be made in due course. Again, I remind hon. Members that the Government have implemented the majority of the provisions in the Act. Hon. Members pointed to those provisions which have not been implemented and more or less suggested that we have spent five years doing nothing. But the majority of the Act has been implemented. The new clause is not necessary, in benefit terms, to secure any new rights, because the disabled are already fully covered. If they cannot or do not want to act on their own behalf, they are already catered for.
Perhaps Opposition Members should consider not those who, because they are seeking to make a claim through another person, already have information and are on the ladder, but those who cannot speak for themselves and do not know that they can appoint someone to represent them. We have commissioned a wide survey on information and the disabled person and we look forward to studying its results with considerable care. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was charmingly unconvincing. I do not understand how acceptance of the new clause could prevent the disabled from representing themselves if they wanted. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who drew attention to the non-implementation of the remaining provisions of the 1986 Act.
The Minister said that most of the provisions had been introduced, but in fact only 50 per cent. of them have. The Act was structured to meet its purposes, and was intended to be implemented as a whole. It cannot have real meaning unless the disabled have the right to be heard, and unless those who require advocates or representatives also enjoy that right. Unless the Government address that vital issue, those of us who supported that legislation will continue to feel that it has not achieved its objective.
The hon. Lady dismissed the argument that some councils will not deal with appointees. That is not good enough, and even if every responsible body dealt with appointees, that would still not be enough. We want to get away from formal confrontation. That ambition should

appeal to the Minister and to her Government. If the Government do not accept the new clause, there will be more and more tribunals and formality. More disabled people will apply for benefits to which they have a right, but they will not be allowed the assistance of an advocate or representative, as the new clause suggests.
The debate has provided an opportunity to highlight the non-implementation of important provisions in the 1986 Act. This morning's weather forecast showed that it was colder in the hon. Lady's constituency of Maidstone than in Moscow, and she did not do much to warm our hearts with her contribution. However, I shall be returning to this issue time and again, but I shall not delay the House by seeking to pursue the proposed clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

INTRODUCTION OF DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out from first 'component' to end and insert
',a mobility component and an additional costs component'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'to' to end of line 16 and insert 'one or more components'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'awarded' to end of line 4 and insert
'more than one component is the aggregate of the appropriate weekly rates for all such components as so determined.
No. 4, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
`37ZAA. Subject to the provisions of this act, a person shall be entitled to the additional costs component of a disability living allowance for any period throughout which because of a physical or mental disability he incurs extra expenditure as a result of:

(i) a need for extra heating;
(ii) the need to follow a special diet;
(iii) the need for help with cleaning, shopping and other domestic work;
(iv) incontinence or other disabilities that cause extra laundry or a need for extra baths;
(v) communication;
(vi) heavy wear and tear on clothing or a significant need for extra or special clothing;
(vii) attendance needs;
(viii) other needs which result in additional expenditure which he would not incur if he was not physically or mentally disabled.'.

Mr. Morris: It is fitting that the first amendments for debate are among the most crucial. That is acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Social Security in his foreword to "The Way Ahead", which identified as the first main need
better coverage of assistance with the extra costs of being disabled.
Would that the Bill lived up to that laudable aim, and that the Government's legislative performance matched the precepts embodied in the right hon. Gentleman's foreword.
The Bill's failure to meet the broad range of additional costs incurred by the disabled provoked strong and sustained criticism from all the main organisations that represent them. They were led to expect that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' findings would pave the way for a comprehensive review of benefits. Disabled


people also hoped for full and meaningful consultation between the Government and their own organisations about a workable system to address their unmet needs.
Instead, the Government chose merely to tinker with the existing attendance and mobility allowances and to cobble together, with a public relations flourish, the so-called disability living allowance.
The very title of that allowance is a cruel misnomer, which plays on the aspirations of disabled people for an income on which they can live with some dignity. In fact, it leaves a huge area of unmet need by recognising only the extra costs that arise from attendance or immobility.
Even the attendance and mobility needs of many disabled are met only in part; yet the Government publicly admit that the current savings made by their policies for the sick and disabled should not be seen as "saving money". In an interview published in The Times on 29 September 1990, the Minister for Social Security said that the Government's long-term savings would give his Department "powerful cards to play" with the Treasury. My experience is that to let the Treasury pick one's pockets once is to invite them to pick them again. I have never seen in print a franker admission that the Government's current policies for the sick and disabled will take them into profit.
I make no apology for reminding the House that average earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. since 1979, whereas disability benefits are only 1 per cent. higher. That is the truth behind the Government's claims to have targeted the disabled for special help.
The disabled incur a wide variety of extra costs, and there are many examples of the magnitude of the unmet need that the Bill will do nothing to redress. Norah is 67 years old. She has complete lesion paraplegia due to an absess on her spine. She lives alone and uses a wheelchair. She has to buy in domestic help and occasional physiotherapy, and pay someone to shop for her. She needs cotton wool, soothing creams, vitamins and disinfectant—but frequently cannot afford to buy them.
Norah also has to meet extra laundry costs due to incontinence and catheter-changing while she is in bed, and because of her use of special creams and medication. Her clothes wear out more quickly, and she needs more clothing because she feels the cold more than others. Because of wear and tear and frequent washing, her bedding must frequently be replaced. Norah is also on a special diet that costs more. Because she spends so much time at home, and needs to keep warm, her fuel costs are high. Needless to say, her phone is a lifeline—but the bills are a worry.
The extra costs that Norah incurs because of her disability are estimated at £108–46 per week. She now has the unenviable task of choosing between two competing necessities. She says
I would rather be hungry than cold.
That such a disabled person should have to choose between food and warmth is scandalous by any reckoning.
I have dealt at some length with that case because it helps to illustrate the very wide range of extra costs which the amendment seeks to meet. They are costs that some hon. Members and non-disabled people may find it difficult to imagine. Innumerable other examples can be cited. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report the case from Greater Manchester of a 20-year-old disabled women who has to drag her feet

because of her disability, and wears her shoes out very quickly. With the £27.40p. she receives on income support she cannot afford to replace them.
Age Concern gave the example of a 65-year-old man receiving attendance allowance. He needs three bags of coal a week, each costing £8, to keep warm. From his attendance allowance of £25.05p, he is left with barely £1 for other costs. He writes:
Clothing and footwear are a thing of the past for my wife and me.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind cite the example of Mr. Cox, who is registered blind. He spends more than £30 a week on extra costs. They arise from the frequent cleaning of his clothes, due to falls and spillages, and much more than average wear and tear of clothing. Transport costs are also a major problem. Blind people living alone face even higher costs than Mr. Cox as they have to rely more upon paid help.
Deaf Accord say that:
Being deaf does not currently entitle you to any benefits and this will not change under the Bill. We believe that there should be an additional costs component to the DLA for deaf and deaf-blind people, this would include the extra costs they incur to overcome their communication problems.
I urge hon. Members who have not done so to read details of the cases documented in briefings from Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the RNIB, Mencap, the Spastics Society and RADAR, among other organisations, where they will see that the examples that I have used are by no means isolated.
Why, then, have the Government chosen to disregard the overwhelming evidence of hardship among disabled people? Ministers have relied heavily on findings by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which suggested that the average weekly extra costs of disablement were only £6.10p per week, with no more than half a million people spending more than £15. OPCS researchers have themselves said, however, that respondents estimates of their costs are:
Sensitive to the interviewing techniques used.
They are not entirely satisfied about the reliability of the figures and advised:
Because of all the problems … in obtaining reliable estimates of expenditure, all the results presented in this chapter should be treated with some caution.
Far from following that advice, the Government have used the results to make fundamental policy decisions. Ministers brush aside conflicting evidence presented by disability organisations. Using the OPCS reports more carefully than the Government, the Disablement Income Group found that the extra weekly costs of disability were £41.84p. Using their own questionnaire, the figure rose to £65.94p.
The independent living fund also provides irrefutable proof of the Government's very seriously mistaken view of the extra costs of disability. In fact, the independent living fund average weekly payment is £72.
The Government have also chosen to use information from the family expenditure survey in spite of the caution advised by its authors, who say:
the evidence for substantial, unavoidable 'costs' of disability, to be met without regard to costs or priorities, is not to be found in research based on expenditure comparisons such as this.
Any calculation of the "true" costs of disability is complicated by the low incomes and often low expectations of disabled people. Many have no opportunity to spend money on items that non-disabled


people regard as basic needs. They cannot spend what they do not have. It can be hard even to conceive of spending which for most people is commonplace. One young disabled person with cerebral palsy, who is incontinent and uses a wheelchair, short not of luxuries but of necessities, says:
Because I haven't got the money I go without; it's as simple as that.
5.45 pm
The Government should long ago have heeded the advice of the Social Services Select Committee which recommended Ministers to work with disability organisations to conduct and publish research on the actual and potential costs of disability.
Instead, the Government not only misuse the OPCS reports but make further misplaced assumptions. They argue that the existing attendance and mobility allowances make "generous allowance" for the extra costs of disability and that any money not used on attendance or mobility costs can be used for other costs of disabled living. That is deeply resented by disabled people and their organisations. They strongly refute the argument that existing allowances are generous and point out that blind people like Mr. Cox, for example, despite the extra costs, do not qualify for attendance or mobility allowance.
One finding of the OPCS is that digestion disabilities cause the highest extra expenditure, but how can people with such disabilities, who are not entitled to attendance or mobility allowance, use any part of either of them for their extra dietary costs?
In regard to people with high extra dietary costs, I challenged the Government at the Committee stage of the Bill about their misuse of research by Anita MacDonald, chief paediatric dietician at the Children's hospital at Ladywood in Birmingham, when calculating the dietary needs of people with HIV and AIDS and others with long-term disabilities. Her work was used to contradict my submission on Second Reading and in Committee about the extra dietary costs and also the submissions of the Terrence Higgins Trust.
In a letter that I have now received from Anita MacDonald she says:
I consider that the information in my paper has been inappropriately used by the DSS against the case made for additional dietary support for people with HIV and AIDS. In fact, I feel very dismayed that the DSS has apparently chosen to use the information quoted in the paper out of context, particularly as I had discussions with an official of the DSS in the Autumn of 1987 … I would be grateful if my paper would not be used against the Terrence Higgins Trust as it is not intended to apply to patients with AIDS and HIV infection, nor can the costings be interpreted as being the average costs of a healthy diet.
That is a most serious refutation of ministerial statements, and I hope the Minister will now apologise to the House and address the very serious unmet needs of people with AIDS. The help that they need, and which the amendment would give them, is help to keep them alive. That is what this debate means to them.
This is an important debate also for Mrs. Christine Saltmarshe, a distressed mother whose 19-year-old daughter is severely disabled. As the Minister knows—although he has made no response and I must now recall her letter—she wrote to me in November to say:

My daughter was 19 three days ago. She is severely disabled and her problem is epilepsy which is caused by severe food intolerance or allergy. Because of this she is on a very strict and, therefore, expensive diet. When she was 16, in November 1987, she was awarded the whole diet allowance under the Supplementary Benefit rules. In April 1988, when the new system came in, she was given £30 transitional addition, but of course this is being rapidly eroded as her income has been frozen and inflation soars. She got no rise at 18, and now has had a letter from the DSS stating that, in December, the Severe Disablement Allowance will go up by £10 a week, but that she will get nil. I have put in an appeal to a Tribunal, but I know the regulations are against her. I have written to my MP John Major and have had letters back from him and Nicholas Scott expressing sympathy, but saying she can't be helped, because of the regulations.
Mrs. Saltmarshe concluded:
I wonder if you can tell me where we go from here?
I have told the Government that it is simply not good enough for Mrs. Saltmarshe to be informed that her daughter cannot be helped because of the regulations. Ministers have the power to alter regulations. Indeed, the social security changes of April 1988, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred, were legislated for by them. The fact that Mrs. Saltmarshe's Member of Parliament is now the Prime Minister makes the replies that she received all the more curious.
I regard the case as one of undoubted, unmerited and unnecessary suffering and hardship, which the Minister and the Prime Minister can bring to an end by accepting the amendments. As they know, Mrs. Saltmarshe's daughter is but one of the more than 1 million disabled losers from the social security changes of April 1988 which the amendments seek to undo.
In further support of the amendments, I emphasise that the OPCS survey was conducted before the cuts imposed in April 1988. The importance of the amendments was reflected in Standing Committee where they had support from both sides of the Committee. The vote was initially tied until, in keeping with precedent, the Chair's casting vote was given to the Bill as drafted.
The Minister has suggested that a costs allowance would involve complexity. Yet his new disabled living allowance introduces 11 new permutations of benefits. What could be more bewilderingly complex for disabled people? Simplicity is important but so, too, is meeting need. In "The Way Ahead" the Government set themselves four objectives, including improving the structure of benefits to bring it more into line with the needs of disabled people and giving more to those most in need.
Our proposal for a cost component is completely in line with those objectives. It has the support of the Disability Benefits Consortium, an umbrella group representing all the major disability organisations, including the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, RADAR, the RNIB, the Spastics Society and Age Concern. It also has the support of people in all parties and is eminently deserving of the backing of the House. After all, the House has irrefutable proof from victims of the social security cuts of April 1988 that even many severely disabled people are being made to go hungry by the loss of benefits on which they so crucially depend.

Sir David Price: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for bringing to the Floor of the House the whole problem of the extra costs of disability. As the House will know, the ninth report of the old Social Services Select Committee considered disability in relation to care in the community. A section of that report dealt with the cost of disability. I can be mercifully brief, because all the evidence is in our report. It struck the Committee that the Government rested their case on the OPCS reports. Surprisingly enough, we received a great deal of evidence that the OPCS estimates of the extra cost were not correct.
This is not the occasion to go into methodology. Certainly, no one disputes the integrity of the OPCS. If we had time, I could describe some of the reasons why the methodology was inappropriate and why the range was too wide. I give the House just one quotation from Mr. Ian Bruce, the director-general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind:
so many disabled people have low incomes, if you say to them: 'How much more money do you spend on things because you are disabled?', they may never have had the opportunity to spend the money to start with … A lot of blind people do not go out very much because they cannot afford taxis. Now if you ask them how much extra they spend on travel or transport, they might say not very much but that is because they have never had the money to do it".
The phrase:
they have never had the money to do it
is important.
We made a recommendation as a result of our study, and the right hon. Gentleman quoted it. We asked for more research. In our report, we quoted the set of figures given to us by the OPCS, taking category 3 to category 10 of disability. We also took the figures provided by the Disablement Income Group. There is not a minor but a substantial and marked variation between the two sets of figures. I am not saying that one or other is correct, but there is sufficient disparity to worry the House.
Our recommendation was:
the Government conduct and publish ongoing research on the actual and potential costs of disability,
and—this is important—
in conjunction with organisations representing disabled people, to inform future policy decisions about assistance for disabled people.
I wish briefly to put three proposals to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, can we have general agreement that the OPCS figures—which were referred to in the Select Committee report and several other reports—on the estimated extra costs of disability should not be taken by the Government or the House as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Secondly, we should carry out more research along the lines of the Select Committee recommendation, and the Government should implement proposals based on it. Thirdly, research should lead to a permanent on-going survey of the extra costs of disability, involving, on the Government side, the OPCS and possibly some appropriate academics, and the voluntary organisations which are in day-to-day touch with the more severe cases. I suggest that that on-going survey should be the basis for future determination of the rates of disability living allowance and should be used in all further calculations of upratings and readjustments, as the case may be.
I draw an analogy with the cost of living index, which is determined by surveys of family expenditure and is more or less accepted across the House. It is a fair way of determining the effect of inflation on ordinary people's incomes. A similar system should be adopted in future for determining the extra cost of living with a disability.
My proposal is modest. It does not involve doing anything in the Bill today or during its future stages, but it would help the people to whom I talk in the disability organisations to feel that the Government have a commitment to do what they ask in the future. If my right hon. Friend rejects that proposal entirely, on what basis will future upratings of allowances be made?
My proposal is so modest that I am astonished at my moderation on a cold night. I hope that, as always, my right hon. Friend will find my logic devastating.

6 pm

Mr. Ashley: I endorse what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has just said. There has been a great outcry among disabled people about the lack of provision for the extra costs of disablement. We have had a great deal of information from fervent researchers. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. They contribute so much to our speeches.
Diana Sutton has done so much for the all-party disablement group and has been helpful on this issue. Mary Holland has also been helpful, as has Peter Large, whose work is of enormous benefit. I will not go so far as to say that those people write Members' speeches, but they certainly help a very great deal. If I may be forgiven for introducing a personal note, I would refer to my wife, Pauline, who makes a major contribution to my work. Sometimes I feel like a spare part. The fact is that we receive a mass of information about these problems.
I do not see how the Government can retain the name that this Bill carries. It simply is not possible to have a genuine disability allowance with only two components and with vital costs excluded. Exclusion of these costs makes a mockery of the legislation. I suggest to the Minister that the Bill might be renamed the Exclusion of Vital Allowances Bill. That would be far more appropriate. A costs allowance should be included. There is anecdotal and statistical evidence from organisations for the disabled, there is statistical evidence from the OPCS, and there is common sense. In the Standing Committee, the amendment had all-party support. There was a tied vote, and the Chairman voted for retention of the status quo.
Many people were surprised when the Minister implied that those receiving mobility allowance could spend it on something else. He knows that that is nonsense. He knows that what is allowed does not cover even the costs for which it is intended. How then could it be used to cover other costs? I suspect that disabled people will think that the Minister is living in Alice's Wonderland.
They are concerned about such comments, but they are even more concerned that their requirements are not being met. They are living in deficit, and they are very anxious about that. They receive no help to meet those special costs, and naturally, as a result, they are suffering hardship. The Minister speaks of favouring coherent structures. I go along with that, but we must not have


coherent structures at the expense of justice. Making provision for the extra costs of disability would indeed be providing justice.
Those, like most hon. Members, who have their faculties and adequate income do not appreciate what a burden these extra costs impose. I should like to conclude by spelling out some of them, though not in actual cash terms. I know that this has been done before, but I shall take 30 seconds to do it again.
Handicapped people, especially handicapped children, cause excessive wear to their clothes; those who are incontinent need extra washing; those with stomach complaints and associated disabilities need special diets; those who are immobile—the very severely crippled—need extra warmth; deaf people—not myself, so this is not special pleading—need expensive communication aids; those whose bodies are frail are incapable of "do it yourself". Actually, as I am pretty ham-fisted, I am incapable of "do it yourself" anyway, so I get my wife to do the jobs.
Disabled people who cannot do such jobs have to pay to have them done. They also find it difficult to do shopping. All these things, although they may sound simple, are profoundly important. I hope that the Minister will take account of this argument and think again.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I want to speak on amendment No. 4, which deals with the extra cost component. I believe that its wording is exactly the same as that of amendment No. 6 in the Standing Committee, on which we had a very good debate. We have had another good debate today, and I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who speaks from such experience, as well as that of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), whom I congratulate on the very good work that he does for the all-party group. The right hon. Gentleman does a great deal to ensure that that group promotes the cause of the disabled.
It is very important that we should recognise the extra costs that disability involves. From personal experience, I can say that there is great validity in all the points that have been raised in the debate on this amendment. I am thinking of such things as the need for extra heating and for special diets. People who are mentally handicapped tend to want to eat only certain kinds of food. It can be quite difficult and expensive to get them to change their habits. Certainly, my household gets through a large number of Kit-Kats as an inducement to our son Steven, following the meal, to go upstairs and start the next stage of the day's routine.
People who are disabled may need help with shopping, cleaning and other domestic duties, and there are such problems as incontinence. When we were on holiday abroad, our son refused for a whole month to go to the lavatory, and we had to buy incontinence aids.
So far as communication costs are concerned, I am not quite sure what is involved in our case, because Steven, while he likes to listen on the telephone, seems to be struck dumb. Then there is heavy wear and tear on clothing. Very often, disabled people have feet of different sizes, so two pairs of shoes have to be bought, and two shoes thrown away.
Attendance needs are one of the most important aspects of this matter. The home help care that we are offered

amounts to just three hours a week during holiday periods. When one considers that care is necessary 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that is very little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said on one occasion that she thought that friends and neighbours would be very keen to help. That is not our experience. Indeed, one's friends and neighbours tend to shun one. I think they are frightened of what might be involved. One is glad to have such help on occasions, but I do not think that friends and neighbours are desperately anxious to rush in. Many people are frightened of mental handicap, and others may be worried about the possibility of being drawn into a commitment that might prove too burdensome.
I have no doubt that, in my constituency, families who are struggling to look after children—many of them, indeed, not now children but adults, and many of them profoundly mentally handicapped—constitute one of the greatest areas of unmet need. Such people do not get the help and respite care that they require, and it is not readily supplied by friends and neighbours.
The amendment ends with a reference to "other needs". Of course, there are very many other needs. We have found it necessary to get a powered wheelchair because my wife has difficulty pushing the ordinary one uphill. I was absolutely staggered at the cost. The price of an ordinary wheelchair is £130, and it can be supplied through the social services, but an indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair costs over £1,500, and is only now being considered as something that should be provided by the social services. So the extra cost is very substantial.
As has been said, we had quite a surprising vote in the Standing Committee. It was the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) who came out with the result that left the Government in control of the position. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of the words that he himself used in that debate. I listened to them very carefully. On the first day of the Committee's deliberations, he said:
The hon. Member for Caernarfon will remember our previous debates, especially those about children under the age of two. Having resisted amendments in support of that for two successive years, I was not prepared to go through that experience again and we introduced the change. Who knows what might flow from our discussions on the Bill, but not today!"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 December 1990; c. 26.]
The Minister went on to say that I could make up my own mind. Having been given what I interpreted as a tiny inducement, I was carried away and decided to express my personal view when it came to the vote. I did not foresee that we should end up with a tied vote, so it was an interesting result.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman's support in that tied vote in Committee was not only widely remarked upon but was also appreciated. It was not just his vote. As the House heard tonight, the hon. Gentleman has deep personal experience of the realities of life for families with disabled children. In my view, it was a very important contribution.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I thank him in turn for the way in which he led the Opposition in Committee. It was a very constructive debate all the way through the Committee proceedings and


the right hon. Gentleman's own contributions were excellently put. Again, he has spoken very well today, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that he thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was living in Alice's Wonderland. I am almost inclined to agree with him. The figures show that, compared with what used to be spent on disabled people, spending is approaching "Alice in Wonderland"—although, of course, a lot more money is needed.
Expenditure on disabled people was about £10 million a day when the Government came to power, in today's money terms. We have increased that spending at the rate of £1 million a day every year that the Government have been in power. We are now, therefore, spending over £20 million a day on disabled people. I very much look forward to another decade in which we yet again double our expenditure in real terms on disabled people. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on helping to bring about this large increase in spending.
We might not yet be in "Alice in Wonderland", but I think that we can look forward to something far more like Wonderland than anything that we enjoyed when the Opposition were in power. They do not have the ability to manage the economy well enough to produce the wealth that can be spent on the disabled.
I very much support my right hon. Friend's management of the Government's programme of spending on disabled people. The Bill will bring about the spending of another £1 million a day on them. The Government have an excellent record. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr. David Bellotti: I join those who congratulated the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I wish him well for the future.
Last Friday, I visited Hazel Court school in my constituency for the first time. It caters for young people with severe learning difficulties. As they grow older, they will benefit from the provisions of the Bill. The school has a high reputation for pioneering work in sensory education. Schools such as Hazel Court are to be found throughout the country. The Bill is important to the work of those teachers. They, supported by the parents and other people in the community, will enable us in partnership to deliver the programmes that are so needed.
Many of the children at that school suffer from severe brain damage, which leads to many of them having no sense of danger. Severe brain damage can also lead to hyperactivity. They need intensive help for much of the time. Additional money would go a long way towards helping parents to cope with difficulties over travel, health, welfare, eating, shopping and clothing. The rest of us do not experience those difficulties.
The additional allowance would also help those who cannot walk properly. In the past they have not always been able to benefit from additional allowances. Those who need to be regularly bathed or who face extra laundry and clothing costs as a result of their special needs would also be helped by the additional allowance.
During the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, a few cases have been brought to my attention.

I am not convinced that to date the Government have done all they could to help those with special needs. We have all had superb support from the voluntary organisations in briefing us for these debates, but I should prefer to refer to a case in my constituency.
A lady, Mrs. Ager, suffers from an obvious mobility difficulty. She applied to Norcross in Blackpool for a mobility allowance. She was turned down. Arthritis Care, a voluntary organisation, provided her with superb back-up and support. The medical evidence that she has provided cannot be questioned, so she intends to take her case to appeal.
6.15 pm
Mrs. Ager received a letter from Blackpool which said that her file could not be found. She came to see me in my surgery—with tremendous difficulty, because of her disability. As a new Member of Parliament, I was staggered that the letter from Blackpool she showed me was a circular letter. Obviously, many letters have been prepared to send out to people, claiming that their files have been lost and that no progress can be made with their appeals. I ask the Minister to ensure that local authorities or Government Departments do not send circular letters to people saying that their files have been lost. It is three and a half weeks since I wrote to Blackpool, and I have not yet received a reply.
It would be extremely helpful if carers received an additional allowance. Many hundreds of thousands of people are caring for others. They will be doubly penalised unless an additional allowance is made available to them. Many of them give up earning their own living in order to care for someone else. Unless the person who is disabled is able to claim the maximum allowance and the additional costs incurred, the person who has given up earning his or her living in order to care for someone else will be unable to benefit from the family income that is available to the disabled person.
That will lead to a double penalty for many people who care for others and for the many others who are in partnership with local and central Government. Without the help of such wonderful voluntary organisations as Mencap, Age Concern and the Spastics Society, both local and central Government would have very much more to do.
I was intrigued by the reference to index-linking by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). My mind went back to the beginning of our debates, when the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to local authorities. About a year ago, appearing as a local government representative before a Select Committee, I suggested that the money that is available ought to be ring-fenced. The view expressed about local authorities by the hon. Member for Exeter might be somewhat better if the money available could be ring-fenced. That would meet the objective. If we also adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, that the money should be index-linked, I am sure that every local authority would be able to meet all its future responsibilities.
There is no moral justification for introducing any age limits on any matter. It seems ridiculous and immoral that someone who might lose a leg and become immobile at the age of 66 should be treated differently from someone who loses a leg at 64 or 59. The immobility is the same. Our task must always be to see that those who have special needs can enjoy the maximum quality of life, similar to those of


us who do not have special needs. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, that will be one of the matters that the Minister will bear in mind.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Clause 1 seems to be almost a Bill in itself and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who have had to persuade colleagues that this is a shortish Bill. My reason for saying that is that, although I share the concern for the carers as well as for those for whom they care, I wish to ask whether my right hon. Friend would have power under this or some other legislation to make additional payments for additional costs if the Government chose, after negotiation with the Treasury, to do that. I do not necessarily expect a reply today, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will reply by letter and place a copy in the Library. Do we require the introduction of an amendment such as amendment No. 4 to allow the Minister to have that power? This issue may become more relevant when the Bill is considered in another place. Although I am prepared to listen to what my right hon. Friend has to say today, some hon. Members will want to know whether the additional costs provision could be met in another way if the amendment were unsuccessful.
My second question is whether my right hon. Friend is willing to give an assurance to the House that if further and more direct evidence on additional costs is introduced and considered alongside the OPCS evidence—I am not casting aspersions on the OPCS, which works professionally—the Government will consider it. Obviously, they may not be willing to accept it immediately, but will they have an open mind? At the moment, we may be relying too much on the OPCS evidence.
Even if the amendment were passed tonight or in another place, or was introduced by the Government, I do not believe that it is rational to expect to meet all the additional costs that disabilities may bring with them. It is important to concentrate on the most significant and obvious. I accept that one person in 10 in this country has a disability, but I do not think that it is practical to have files on so many of us. We need to ask to whom we can give the greatest help at any one time. I am not saying that we should make a decision in 1991 and then forget about it, because I hope that, as we resume growth, we will see a doubling or quadrupling of our help for those with special needs as part of the social market economy, on which there is growing agreement across the House. We want to create the wealth and ensure that we use as much of it as possible to bring the greatest help to those whose needs should be recognised just as much as those who have company cars or big mortgages.

Mr. Scott: I have sympathy with the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Since coming to office we have increased expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled by more than 120 per cent. It is a record of which we can be proud. However, as my hon. Friend said, that still leaves us with difficult choices about priorities.
I welcome the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to our deliberations on disability and hope that he will continue to take an interest. He said that he does not like the age limit of 65 as it applies to mobility allowance. It would cost about £2 billion to abolish that age limit. I do not know whether he would accord such a priority to

that, but it would involve massive expenditure. We have sought to reinforce a philosophical justification in the Bill for concentrating help on and giving priority to those who are congenitally disabled or disabled early in life and do not have an opportunity to build up contributory benefits, savings or occupational pensions in the same way as those who have had a full working life and who encounter mobility or other difficulties in their old age. We have to make choices all the time.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is unfairness in that one in 10 children with cerebral palsy can obtain an average of nearly £1 million in damages if it can be proved that the cerebral palsy was caused by the doctor at delivery, when the other nine out of 10 get nothing except what can be provided through the benefits system?

Mr. Scott: I do not want to enter into that debate. Essentially, it is not a matter for me. There is a capricious element in some medical settlements that many people find disturbing. I do not wish to pursue that argument. I feel that the House wants to come to a conclusion fairly rapidly on this set of amendments. If I am tolerably brief, it will be through no discourtesy to the House but because we thoroughly covered this ground in Committee and I do not wish to weary hon. Members.
Whatever shortcomings the OPCS survey may have, it was the most thorough piece of work that has ever been done in this country on the extent, nature and circumstances of disabled people and we have largely, though not exclusively, to rest on its findings. It was followed up by the family expenditure survey, which tended to reinforce the findings of the OPCS. Of course, we will continue to research and monitor the situation and ensure that the new benefits that we are introducing in the Bill meet the needs of those who really need help.
If I am honest with the House, I should say that I will be surprised if we get matters right first time. We are introducing two new benefits that substantially extend the help available and bring, with associated measures, extra help to some 850,000 people who suffer from disabilities of one sort or another. We will have to research and monitor the impact of all this and see whether we need to make any adjustments.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke about the service that we provide for the disabled. We are anxious to improve that. When we looked at the Department of Social Security's delivery of service, we recognised that it was frequently not of the standard that we would want. We have taken substantial steps to improve that, not least through the operational strategy, at a cost of about £1·7 billion for the computerisation of our service and the dispersal of jobs outside London to provide a more sustained commitment. We have a rapid turnover of staff in London and that makes life difficult. The error rate has come down, the speed of service has improved and the new assessment and adjudication procedures have been widely welcomed. I want us to build on that.
The OPCS showed that attendance allowance and mobility allowance were effectively targeted on those who had extra costs. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned mobility allowance in particular. It is worth saying that the Government have not just uprated mobility allowance in terms of inflation,


but one year provided a substantial increase over and above inflation and removed the allowance from tax, which was a great help to a substantial number of people.
Many people spend their attendance allowance and mobility allowance not just on coping with their care or mobility needs but on a whole range of other needs. As I pointed out in Committee, of those disabled adults under the age of 65 who are in receipt of attendance allowance, more have needs which relate to disabilities such as continence, intellectual functioning, consciousness, communication and behaviour than have personal care needs. So the benefits have a much wider cover than we normally assume. As I have already indicated, we will need to flesh out in due course the findings of the OPCS and not rest exclusively on them or treat them as a bible. There will be more research, and we will have an on-going survey on whether the benefits are meeting the needs of the people who have them.
A point was made about the use by the Department of Mrs. Anita MacDonald's research. I have often referred to the study as evidence of the cost of a high-protein, high-calorie diet, which is recommended for AIDS patients in particular. The research is in the public domain, and people can make their own judgment about what Mrs. MacDonald says. I shall certainly respect her wishes about the treatment of her research in future if she is upset by the use that we have made of it.
6.30 pm
Our policy on provision through income support for extra costs such as special diets does not rest on Mrs. MacDonald's single piece of research, although, as I said, I have quoted it from time to time, as have other Ministers. The supplementary benefits system of providing for the extra cost did not work. The people who got extra help were the ones who knew their way around the system rather than those who needed help.
The income support approach, which delivers a significant amount of money—the disability premium is currently £15·40 for a single person—is a more effective way of getting help to the long-term sick and disabled to cover extra costs. The premium is paid on top of the basic rate of income support, which already covers the cost of a normal, healthy diet, which is usually recommended for those with HIV infection. Those who develop full-blown AIDS from the HIV infection are immediately entitled to the higher rate attendance allowance of £37·55 a week. They get that immediately, without having to serve the usual six-month waiting period, which will become three months when we introduce the new benefits.
In essence, the ideas which we are developing for the disability living allowance, based on moving away from the use of medical assessments towards the concept of self-assessment by claimants, mean that it will be a better targeted benefit which will be more extensive than those it replaces. I accept that we will need a doctor's input into some of the judgments, but as far as possible we want to depend on self-assessment. That will be a substantial improvement.
Over the Government's period of office, the take-up of attendance allowance has multiplied by a factor of three, and the take-up of mobility allowance by a factor of six. The two new benefits will be better than those which they replace. We will monitor their implementation carefully.

Because of the points I have made about attendance allowance and mobility allowance, I cannot commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We divided in Committee on the amendments because of the extent of strong feeling in the country about their purpose. We do so again on the Floor of the House, for the same reason.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 231.

Division No. 61]
[6.33 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ingram, Adam


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Allen, Graham
Kennedy, Charles


Anderson, Donald
Kilfedder, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Armstrong, Hilary
Leighton, Ron


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Livingstone, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Macdonald, Calum A.


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beggs, Roy
McKelvey, William


Bellotti, David
McLeish, Henry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McMaster, Gordon


Benton, Joseph
McWilliam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Madden, Max


Blair, Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Meale, Alan


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Michael, Alun


Buckley, George J.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cohen, Harry
Mowlam, Marjorie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Tom
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Crowther, Stan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Dobson, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Doran, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Richardson, Jo


Fearn, Ronald
Rooney, Terence


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Ruddock, Joan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Short, Clare


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


George, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Graham, Thomas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Grocott, Bruce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Wareing, Robert N.


Hinchliffe, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hood, Jimmy
Wilson, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winnick, David


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey






Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Ken Eastham and



Mr. Martyn Jones.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Allason, Rupert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amos, Alan
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arbuthnot, James
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Grist, Ian


Atkinson, David
Ground, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Hague, William


Batiste, Spencer
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harris, David


Body, Sir Richard
Hawkins, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowis, John
Holt, Richard


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hordern, Sir Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Chris
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Roger


Gardiner, Sir George
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nelson, Anthony





Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thorne, Neil


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Price, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Raffan, Keith
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Ward, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Warren, Kenneth


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shelton, Sir William
Wiggin, Jerry


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 34, after 'physical', insert 'or mental'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 14, in page 4, line 36, after 'or', insert—
'(aa) is suffering from severe mental handicap and from severe behavioural problems such that he is unable without physical control by another person to walk to any intended or required destination while out of doors; or'.
No. 12, in page 4, line 39, after 'doors,' insert
'to walk to any intended or required destination on unfamiliar terrain'.
No. 24, in page 4, line 41, at end insert
'or
(c) he is a double amputee.'.
No. 15, in page 5, line 6, after '(1)(a)', insert ', (aa)'.
No. 16, in page 5, line 21, after '(1)(a)', insert', (aa)'.
No. 17, in page 5, line 39, after '(1)(a)', insert 'or (1)(aa)'.

Mr. Wigley: I wish to speak to amendment No. 13 and the other amendments linked with it, particularly amendment No. 14, which deals with the nub of the arguments that we had in Committee and which, unless resolved now, will certainly continue.
In paragraph 37ZC, two groups are defined as beneficiaries of the mobility component of disability living allowance—a
person suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable walk",
which is the current definition of mobility allowance, or
he is able to walk but is so severely disabled physically or mentally"—
and I emphasise "or mentally"—
that to take advantage of the faculty out of doors he requires guidance or supervision from another person most of the time.
Amendment No. 14 introduces a third category. We believe that there is a danger of those two definitions not meeting the campaign objectives that have been put to successive Ministers in charge of disability, or not achieving what the Government either say that they want to do or pretend that they want to do. I shall be charitable and suggest that the Minister genuinely wants to help the group about whom we are most concerned but has not succeeded in achieving the right wording. If he rejects the amendment and makes no commitment, I shall think differently.
Amendment No. 14 adds a third definition—a person who is
suffering from severe mental handicap and from severe behavioural problems such that he is unable without physical control by another person to walk to any intended or required destination while out of doors.
We are considering severely mentally handicapped people who have severe behavioural problems and need more than guidance—they need physical control. When I was talking to my wife about the fact that I would be here and not in the Purcell room listening to her, she recalled taking our two boys, then aged six or seven, to be tested for entitlement to mobility allowance. She recalled the doctors asking them questions, which was absolutely pointless. The doctors told them to do this or do that, but they did not understand because they were mentally handicapped to an extent that made it impossible.
The general ground rules on physically handicapped people and even on moderately mentally handicapped people go out of the window when a handicap is so profound that children, or indeed adults, not only cannot walk in an intended direction but cannot respond to guidance and need physical control. In some circumstances, that physical control can be a tall order indeed and can be a considerable imposition on those who have to take responsibility for it.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA to people who have severe mobility problems as a result of severe mental handicap and behavioural problems. The Government propose to introduce a lower-rate mobility component with the intention of helping people with less severe mobility problems, but the conditions for the lower rate are currently worded in such a way that those most likely to qualify are people with difficulties that are equally severe to those of people who are entitled to the higher rate. The only difference is the cause or origin of the individual's disability. In other words, people with physical disabilities would be likely to get the higher rate, while people with mobility problems stemming mainly or solely from very challenging behaviour or from mental handicap would be likely to get only the lower rate. I

thought that the whole thrust of Government thinking in recent years had been to move away from the cause or origin towards what the impact would be.
The amendment seeks to ensure that people in both categories have an equal chance of getting the higher rate. At one time, severely mentally handicapped people who could walk, but not with intention and not without control, could get the higher rate. There was then a sequence of case law, challenges, appeals and disputes, and the Department challenged certain rulings. Eventually, mentally handicapped people who used to get the benefit found themselves not getting it.
I am told by the Spastics Society that, during his time as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the Prime Minister approved the extension subject to verification by the then Department of Health and Social Security of the estimate of the small numbers likely to benefit. The Minister will probably recall that time, and there is probably some record of it in the Department. The Government have never produced any evidence against the low estimate made by the Spastics Society, by Mencap and by others in the Mobility Allowance Campaign. The creation of a far lower rate of mobility component, apparently with that small group of claimants in mind—perhaps the Minister will clarify that—is a backward step in Government thinking compared with what the Prime Minister said a few years ago. It is not the advance that the Government make it out to be. These people do not have less severe difficulties, but different ones. The new lower-rate component should be reserved for people with genuinely less severe disabilities.
The Government have consistently argued that the extension would bring in too many people and would cost too much, despite ample evidence to the contrary. In Committee, the Minister quoted the figures provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which suggested that 150,000 adults and children have severe behavioural problems and would, therefore, be likely to qualify for the DLA mobility component on those grounds. The Government are trying to shock us by using such huge figures. The Minister has used the figures as a bludgeon to clobber the case for helping the far smaller group of the severely mentally handicapped and those who suffer behavioural problems who should be entitled to the higher rate of mobility allowance.
The Government have never been able to refute the estimate of 8,000 to 9,000 potentially successful claimants made by Mencap and by the Mobility Allowance Campaign. The Spastics Society says that it considers that this figure, based on two research projects, which happen to have been undertaken in Wales, and on the analysis of the 1971 White Paper, which is entitled "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped", is the most reliable that we have. That is the belief of most of the disablement organisations.
The Government have overestimated the number of potentially successful claimants before. Their estimate of the number of blind-deaf people who would qualify for mobility allowance was about seven times the number who got it. The Spastics Society considered the 150,000 to be a gross and totally misleading estimate. The Minister has, either accidentially or deliberately, confused the two needy groups.
The Minister sent me a letter because in Committee I said that the argument seemed to be at cross purposes with ours. The Minister appeared to acknowledge that when he said:
If I may tackle 'head-on' the point you made in Committee about the startling discrepancy between our figures and those produced by Mencap … you were right to say we are talking at cross purposes. Their estimate of numbers derives … from the 1971 paper 'Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped'. That paper, based on three fairly small scale local surveys, was concerned specifically with estimating the numbers of severely mentally handicapped people. My estimate is of people with mental handicap or illness, resulting in behaviour disorder of a type which necessitates physical guidance when walking. These are two different issues.
Indeed, they may be two different issues and that is why we need the amendment.
In referring to that small group, Mencap is talking about people with severe mental handicap who need physical control. The Minister is talking about people with mental handicap—he does not refer to "severe" mental handicap—and people with mental illness who need guidance. He does not use the word "control". Those are two separate groups. Given proper treatment and support, people with a mental illness can be cured; people with a mental handicap cannot. That is one example of the differentiation.
There are two groups. One is a fairly large group of about 150,000 people who need help. The Minister has used the additional cost that they face as one of the justifications in defining the group. The smaller group of 9,000 or 10,000 to whom Mencap has referred and whom the 1971 survey revealed certainly need the top level of mobility allowance.
Challenges face families whose members suffer a mental handicap and who have behavioural problems, to the extent that they cannot be controlled without physical control and who cannot go anywhere because they may go off in the wrong direction. They may be able to walk, but it is not a meaningful activity for them. The support that those families need is as great as the support that is needed by a family with a member who cannot physically walk. Such families equally need taxis to take them around. They cannot take the disabled member of the family on the bus or on the train without having somebody to be a minder —at the best. Sometimes it is not practically possible to do that.
We have two groups. Both are needy, but the Bill has failed to address itself to the long-running argument, which we put to the Minister and to his predecessors, about the needs of severely mentally handicapped people with profound behavioural problems. The smaller group, which contains far fewer than 150,000 people, undoubtedly needs a high level of assistance.
In formulating his letter, the Minister has recognised that there are two different arguments. If he is honest with the House, he will say tonight that the Bill meets one argument, but not the other. I hope that, if not tonight at a later stage, he can give an undertaking to produce a further amendment that will meet the justifiable needs of the small group of 9,000 or 10,000 profoundly mentally handicapped people with behavioural problems who should be getting mobility allowance at the higher rate.

Mr. Hannam: I give a few words of support for the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The amendment represents part of the campaign that has

been waged for many years by the all-party disablement group. Success was achieved for the deaf-blind with the extension of the mobility allowance to them a year or so ago. However, that left open the whole problem of those who should now be brought within the mobility allowance, especially the mentally handicapped and those who suffer from a lack of orientation when they move away from their familiar surroundings.
I support the amendments, but I pick out amendment No. 12, which deals specifically with the problem of the blind or the partially sighted. The Royal National Institute for the Blind supports the amendment as a solution to a problem that should not exist, as even my right hon. Friend the Minister would agree.
The test for the mobility component should be made more effective for blind and partially sighted people who lose their independent mobility if they try to walk on unfamiliar terrain. Amendment No. 12 would ensure that those who are unable to orientate outside their normal surroundings would be able to claim the new mobility component.
As drafted, the Bill is far from clear on that point. I do not believe, from the statements made by the Minister in Committee, that he is opposed in principle to this group of people receiving the benefit. The simple remedy is to get the correct formulation of the criteria to ensure that this group—I refer particularly to the blind and partially sighted—is covered. If the Bill could be amended in the way that amendment 12 suggests, it would include a new definition which would resolve a problem which it is generally agreed should not exist.

7 pm

Mr. Ashley: The House will have been moved and impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke from direct personal experience. I support him and the group of amendments because they address some serious problems concerning disabled people, especially those mentally handicapped people who are discriminated against. The nub of the problem is that we discriminate against the mentally handicapped. The physically disabled and the deaf-blind, but not the mentally handicapped, are eligible for mobility allowance.
As chairman of the all-party disablement group, I was delighted with the success of the campaign which the group, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), launched on behalf of deaf-blind people. But by eliminating one anomaly, we created another, and we must deal with it. We believe that we are being logical and reasonable in urging the Minister to examine the new anomaly of the failure to cope with the problems of severely mentally handicapped people.
We tend to assume that the mobility needs of mentally handicapped people are inevitably less than those of other disabled people, but such an assumption is nonsense. Their mobility needs are just as great, and the pressure on parents is phenomenal. I need not add, in that context, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarfon.
In Committee, the Minister said that the new lower rate was intended for those who could use public transport. I do not believe that anyone assumes that severely mentally handicapped people can use public transport. I have not had as many dealings with mentally disabled people as with the physically disabled, but I know of a case in my


constituency, a boy aged 15, which came into this category. I was surprised when his father brought him to my advice bureau. The boy was fighting, battling, scratching himself and trying to throw himself through the window and door. The battle to restrain that young boy, who was gravely mentally handicapped, was enormous. He could not be left alone. We must provide for people of that type, a small group who are severely mentally handicapped.
I am referring not to people who need only guidance, but to severely mentally handicapped people. I hope that the Minister will heed what was said by the hon. Member for Caernarfon in an eloquent speech, by the hon. Member for Exeter and by myself. Something must be done for this group of people, and I believe that the Minister will do his best.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Amendment No. 24, which stands in my name, asks for automatic mobility allowance, or for what is now the mobility component to be made available automatically to double amputees.
The Minister may say in response that what I seek is unnecessary because in the offing are regulations which will cover this group of people. I take it that the regulations will be made under the Bill. The Secretary of State said in an uprating statement on 24 October 1990 that the provision would be effective from April 1991. Why should that be done by way of regulation? If such a provision is necessary, why not say so on the face of the Bill and allow for it in the primary legislation?
It is vital to discuss the issue of automatic mobility allowance for double amputees in the current circumstances, when we face a serious land battle in the Gulf, resulting in greater numbers of unfortunate people begining to enter the category of which I am speaking.
Several cases of double amputees have been highlighted recently. I am sure that those cases have had an impact on the Department and have put pressure on Ministers to introduce the suggested new regulations. Among the cases that have been highlighted are those of Sergeant Andrew Mudd and Mrs. Sandra Stone.
A constituent of mine, Melvyn Wall, of Delves road, Killamarsh, north Derbyshire, had a foot amputated initially. Shortly afterwards he needed one leg amputated below the knee, and then a second leg amputated below the knee. From January 1988 he was in receipt of mobility allowance. That lasted until January 1990, at which date he was subject to the normal tests for mobility allowance, having by that time been supplied with artificial legs. The mobility allowance was withdrawn, although there have been a number of appeals in the case.
I can best make the case by allowing the amputees to speak for themselves. For example, Melvyn Wall was reported in The Star, a Sheffield newspaper, on 13 January 1990 as having said:
I don't understand why they give you false legs if they don't want you to walk with them.
In another article in the same paper, on 2 May 1990, he was reported as having said:
I can't walk any further than a few yards in the heat we are having at the moment before it gets too much for me, so I just don't know how they can say I am fit enough to walk.
I imagine that in the present bad weather he is having even more difficulty in moving about. If he was tested in the

conditions that we have today rather than in the heat of last year, a different verdict might have been presented by the doctors.

Mr. Scott: I accept that in the past there have been difficulties with some of the assessments, not least because the doctor who examines a patient can take only a snapshot of what the patient can do on a certain day. We are moving much more to self-assessment—perhaps with a general practitioner, a carer or a physiotherapist to support the patient's description of his condition—because we want to get away from the state of affairs which the hon. Gentleman described and make it easier for people to claim for their overall position rather than for what they can do on a particular day.

Mr. Barnes: That is admirable and I agree that there should be a self-assessment provision which can be checked by others rather than having an unfortunate snapshot. Melvyn Wall was moved by the district council from a house on a hillside, where it was difficult for him to move about, to a single bungalow pensioner's accommodation with a bus stop at the end of the street and opposite a newsagent and food shop. He could then wait until the shop was empty to go out and do his shopping because he experienced great difficulty if he had to stand and wait in a queue. He was the type of person who would try hard to overcome the difficulties with which he was faced. It seemed that he was then penalised for making progress.
I hope that we are moving away from penalising people in that way, and that there will be categories so that people such as double amputees, who permanently require assistance, will be granted mobility allowances.
I shall conclude with a slightly longer quotation from a letter from Ken Hewitt, secretary of the Sheffield Area Limbless Association. I might give slightly different nuances to the points made in his letter, but it expresses the feelings of someone who has lost limbs and describes the problems faced by his association's member, Melvyn Wall. The letter that he wrote to the Daily Express, which had previously given much publicity to the staff sergeant Mudd case, states:
Our member Mr. Melvyn Wall, was adjudged 'able to walk without sufficient difficulty' therefore the Allowance could not be paid and the application must therefore fail, this being written on the form received informing him of the decision. Two questions must arise from that. Firstly, the adjudicators are mostly people not having suffered amputation, and with due respect to their professional skill and integrity, there is no possible way they are able to judge what being without legs actually means. It is our view that observing the condition can in no way qualify anyone to appreciate what it actually means in terms of 'living'. The psychological trauma of the loss is sufficiently damaging without the problems arising from actually being in that condition, and the two together create a situation that simply cannot be imagined by anyone not experiencing it themselves. Secondly, what is 'sufficient difficulty' and by what yardstick is it measured. Does the simple fact that someone has decided, against all the odds, that they will walk again, overcoming the pain, difficulty, and problems it may mean, to be as others, a standing upright, walking upright, human being, not count for anything, taking into account where they started from. The fact that that same person could have simply sat and accepted, and chose not to, that that was their life from now on, vegetating in a chair and no one blaming them for so doing, and therefore being given the allowance at a cost to the Exchequer surely has to play some part in this if only to ensure concentration on amputation instead of what they have achieved in spite of it. That their personal guts, pride,


and will to succeed should be rewarded by having the allowance taken away is ridiculous and a slur on our compassion as a nation.
I appreciate that there is a mood in the House in response to those feelings and sentiments. Why cannot we cover the subject in the Bill rather than in regulations?

Mr. Allen: I thank those right hon. and hon. Members who so generously welcomed me to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and particularly the Minister of State for paying a brief but welcome tribute to my cricketing ability. I am here as the balance to the hard-headed and tough approach of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I am the smoothie, the "poor man's Nick Scott" of the Labour team. Unless our good humour continues, I may be forced to reveal the number of runs that the Minister scored in that self-same cricket match. I give him due warning about that.

Mr. Ashley: Tell us now.

Mr. Allen: It will be all the sweeter for having waited.
I also thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for her welcome. She said that she and I may have some confrontations—I hope not. Yesterday, we spoke on television together about cold-weather payments. As both of us were kept in ignorance of the Prime Minister's intentions today, we would do better to work as a partnership, not to be confrontational, because then we may progress further.
I am pleased to support the amendment of someone who is my hon. Friend on this issue, and I hope many others—the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). We have drawn sympathy from an unexpected source referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarfon—the former Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, now the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). An authoritative source, the Spastics Society, stated:
In his time as Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, John Major, himself, approved this extension subject to verification by the DHSS of the estimate of the small numbers likely to benefit.
We must refer to the numbers game later. Apparently, that statement was made to the all-party disablement group on 24 March 1987. Today, I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask about the watch he was now keeping on that pledge and what progress he felt had been made on it in the intervening three years. I await his reply to that—as I awaited his reply to my question on cold-weather payments—with great interest.
If carried, amendment No. 14 would mean that the upper rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance would be paid to a person who cannot walk to an intended destination without control. "Control" is the operative word in those circumstances. The word is not "guidance" or "supervision", for which I believe the Bill concedes the lower rate, subject to interpretation by the relevant organisations, but "control".
To win the intellectual argument for the amendment, if not to win the vote in the Lobbies, we must answer two key questions. First, can the need for control justify a higher rate of mobility allowance? Secondly, if it can justify the

higher rate, how should we seek to reassure the Government that it will not hurt them in public expenditure terms by as much as they fear?
Being the gentle member of the triplets—although I see that we are now joined by our fourth member—and being the one to take the softly, softly approach, it is my intention to try to win over the Government with that argument and reassure them rather than bludgeon them with too many facts and statistics. I want to reassure them that the higher rate will not prove as painful as they fear. I hope that the Minister of State will listen to my arguments with an open mind.
The argument that someone needing control, with all the implications of severe behavioural difficulties, has been put far more eloquently than I dare to try. It has been made by the hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others with far more experience, sometimes personal experience, of such matters. The case has also been expertly made by noble Lords in the other place.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale—to the best of my knowledge, no relation—talked some sense, from great experience, when speaking about one individual. He described the case of a man of 19 who was severely mentally handicapped. He suffered from asthma and epilepsy and tended to run out into the road without being able to hear people calling him back. He often needed two people to manage him out of doors, and he was likely either to sit down and refuse to move or to grab at passers-by.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale also referred to cases of other people who were likely to lie down screaming, to rush out into the middle of traffic or to attack fellow passengers. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, such people need control, not guidance. That is the crux of the argument in trying to convince the Government that such people must be on the appropriate level of mobility allowance.
The central point at issue is less about the principle, which in a slightly more open atmosphere we could all agree on, than about the numbers involved. Those numbers obviously have fantastic consequences for public expenditure. I do not lightly dismiss that. The numbers game is central to the argument. Let us try to determine the real figure. Mencap states that a 1971 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped", takes the view that 8,000 to 9,000 people fall into this category, which includes many people who are aggressive, destructive or over-active, and those who inflict self-injury.
In the past, the Government have estimated that as many as 250,000 people are involved, but they now seem to have settled on 150,000 as being in the B1, B2 and B3 categories, which the Government take as implying the need for some sort of control. It is difficult to bridge the gap between 8,000 or 9,000 and 150,000 who could potentially claim the benefit. Put in crude terms, if the Government's fears about the number are justified, it would cost an extra £150 million to upgrade those people from lower to upper grades. If Mencap is correct, it would cost the Government just £8 million.
It is a difficult decision, one of many difficult decisions facing the Secretary of State and his team. I understand the Government's caution, but I hope that, in getting sucked


into this numbers game, the Minister of State will entertain other considerations in trying to arrive at an accurate figure.
First, the Government can take some heart from their poor record in forecasting the number of people who may take up or be entitled to benefit. As has been said, the deaf-blind who may qualify for the higher rate of mobility allowance have been overestimated by Government forecasters by 700 per cent. That may not necessarily be appropriate to the matter that we are debating, but it merits some caution about stating that 150,000 people would automatically receive this benefit.
Secondly, let us look more closely at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data and analyse whether 150,000 people would take up the benefit. The OPCS figure includes those who are already outside the qualifying age limits. It includes those who are already receiving mobility allowance, due perhaps to physical disability, and many people whose behaviour does not cause mobility problems and those who would not claim. It also includes those who, for one reason or another, may not ultimately be deemed suitable for an award by the relevant authority. While the Government are right to err on the side of caution, they are wrong to overestimate, double-count and exaggerate.
If the Government cannot accept the amendment, they should consider two reasonable, and hopefully inexpensive, steps to help to facilitate examination of this important question in another place. First, they should publish all the unpublished evidence, statistics and assumptions, so that further representations can be made to enable people to arrive at an accurate and agreed figure. Let us see whether the various interested bodies, including the Spastics Society, Mencap and the Government, can reach a consensus.
The Minister of State wrote a long letter to each member of the Committee. I accept that in all good faith the Minister is seeking some middle ground, so that everyone can agree upon a number and make some progress. Will he therefore ensure that all data and assumptions are made available for all interested people who wish to help him in his difficult task?
Will the Government undertake that, if such a reconciliation is impossible because people are determined to stick to their own interpretation of figures—I hope that that will not be the case—they will seek to establish an immediate and urgent independent study? That study would determine the real number at the earliest possible moment, and that will give us common ground on which to take these matters forward. Those are modest requests, and I hope that the Minister of State can accept them and produce some extremely advantageous life enhancement for those whom the debate is about.
Finally, amendment No. 12 is about being able to walk to an intended destination, and it includes a qualification about unfamiliar terrain. That is obviously relevant to blind people. While people may be capable of walking, that ability can be rendered totally useless unless they can reach their required destination. The classic example was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythensnawe (Mr. Morris), who said that a blind person seeking to post a letter in the letter box at the end of the road can often do so by habit or memory. That

blind person seeking to post the letter in the next letter box in the district has great difficulty, because, although he is physically capable of walking, he cannot surmount the obstacles of unfamiliar terrain.
It is vital for the judgment about a person's mobility to be tested on unfamiliar terrain, so that independent walking ability rather than walking from memory is tested. That is the objective of amendment No. 12, and the RNIB understands that the Government are not opposed to that objective. Accepting the amendment would easily clarify the matter. I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to accept it. If he is unable to accept the amendment tabled by the members of the all-party disability group, I hope that he will take away the two issues that I left on the table and try to ensure that we talk about the real needs of the people I spoke about, rather than about the impractical problem of the numbers game. Let us try to resolve that in the short term, so that we can all do the long-term job for those people who depend on us.

Mr. Scott: I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and again congratulate him on the eminently reasonable way in which he has put his case. However, I cannot accept the amendments, and I hope that I can explain why.
Some play has been made in the debate with what has been called the error in calculating the number of deaf-blind people who might be entitled to benefit. That was not our calculation. We took advice from SENSE. I am convinced that the figures are right, but the difficulty at the moment is that we are not reaching the deaf-blind who should be entitled to mobility allowance in the way that we planned. We are having discussions with SENSE. We have looked at the assessment procedures for this benefit and shall launch a publicity campaign to make it much more widely known. I hope that we will be able to achieve better coverage than we have so far.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in essence, what we are concerned about here is an assessment of numbers and whether it is possible to devise a way of ring-fencing the 8,000 to 9,000 people of whom Mencap spoke. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that commitment. I inherited my job from him, although I do not intend to inherit his present job. As a slightly amusing aside in view of our cricketing analogies earlier, I remember turning up to take over his private office, and he said, "You've got a first-class private office here, Nick. They always know the test score." The staff have other qualities too, as it turned out, but that one was rather pleasant.
I acknowledge that that undertaking was given, and I am on record as giving an undertaking to do my best to find a way of defining those 8,000 to 9,000 people. I have had meetings with Mencap to try to do that, and officials have tried to find a formula. I am genuinely unhappy that it has not been possible so far to define such a test. The issue will not go away, but I cannot accept the amendment tonight.

Mr. Wigley: So that we can be sure what we are disagreeing about—we may even be able to agree what we agree about—is the Minister saying that he accepts that the basis of the two figures is different; that there is a broader figure of 150,000 which may be appropriate to the lower level of mobility allowance and a smaller figure of


perhaps 10,000 with greater needs, and that, if it were possible to ring-fence and define those 10,000, the Government would be much more amenable and willing to act on commitments that have already been given?

Mr. Scott: I have searched anxiously for a test that would deliver the sort of result which Mencap was forecasting. It was not a cosmetic exercise. I do not want to go through all the arguments in my letter, because it has been placed in the Library and hon. Members have had a chance to read and analyse it. Questions 13 and 14 in the OPCS survey ask:
Do you often have outbursts of temper at other people with little cause? Do you get so upset that you injure yourself or hit other people?
The figures in that group alone came to some 40,000, which is very much in excess of the group that Mencap is talking about.
I cannot recommend that the House accept the amendment. I happily admit that the 150,000 lower rate qualifiers with a need for physical control arising from mental disability include many people who are mentally ill as well. But we are still nowhere near defining the 8,000 or 9,000 mentally handicapped people about whom Mencap is concerned.
If hon. Members wish, I am happy to go into greater detail. I will look again at the figures and arguments in my letter to see whether they need fleshing out, and whether I can give further information to those who have contributed to the debate. However, I regret that I cannot be sufficiently encouraging today to say that I am in prospect of being able to devise a test that will enable us effectively to ring-fence that group.
I can be a bit more encouraging about amendment No. 12, although I cannot accept it. I was rather hoping that I might be able to table an amendment in order to achieve the effect intended, but I do not want to do so until I am sure that I have it right and that amending the Bill is the best way to achieve our common purpose—that a person who can go by himself to the local corner shop because he is familiar with the journey but needs help to go anywhere else should receive benefit. We all agree on that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others for pointing out by way of amendment that the Bill as it stands may not have achieved that purpose. We are studying the matter carefully. We want to devise an abstract test of what a claimant's mobility would be like when he was on unfamiliar terrain. That is not the easiest thing in the world, but we are determined to do it. I hope that, on the basis that we are determined to achieve that, it will not be necessary to press the amendment today. I hope that hon. Members will accept my undertaking that we will in due course table an amendment to bring about the desired result.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister undertake to look again at my proposal regarding the publication of all data relating to the OPCS study? Will he also undertake to write to me after considering the proposal that there be an independent study should there be a failure to agree the numbers involved?

Mr. Scott: As I said, I shall see whether I can flesh out the arguments in my original letter. I am not sure that an independent study would necessarily be the right thing, but I am prepared to continue discussions with the disability

organisations and have another crack at it, but I am not particularly confident about our ability to do so, because we have already tried hard.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) talked about safeguarding entitlement to the higher rate of mobility component for double leg amputees, which is dealt with in amendment No. 24. He acknowledged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his uprating statement, announced that the regulations will be amended from April this year to put the entitlement of those people beyond doubt.
The hon. Gentleman asked why that should not be put on the face of the Bill rather than he done by regulation. There are two reasons. First, regulations would take effect in April, whereas the Bill will not receive Royal Assent until after that. Therefore, we can do things more quickly through regulations. Secondly, in general, as I have learnt to my cost in three and a half years, although we have considerably simplified the social security system, it is still enormously complex. If provisions are seen to have faults, it is easier to adjust them by secondary rather than primary legislation.
I hope for those reasons, particularly because we can move more speedily on double leg amputees than would otherwise be the case, that hon. Members will feel that that is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, particularly for his acknowledgement of the case put forward in amendment No. 12 and that he is actively looking at ways forward, possibly by way of an amendment in another place or any other way which can be devised. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in whose name that amendment stands, and all of us in the all-party disablement group, are glad to hear that. We are also glad to hear his commitment in relation to other amendments.
The Minister seemed to accept the general thrust of the argument regarding the 10,000 severely mentally handicapped with acute behavioural problems, but at the end of his comments he dealt with the figures in a way that could be misleading. He referred to questions 13 and 14 in the survey:
Do you often have outbursts of temper at other people with little cause? Do you get so upset that you injure yourself or hit other people?
In his letter, he says that the figure for that group alone is about 40,000. He compared that figure with Mencap's figure of 10,000.
But those two groups are not comparable. The group defined by questions 13 and 14 is much broader. It may well come to 40,000, but if the Minister thinks about the matter, I think that he will concede that there is a smaller group, whether it be 8,000, 10,000 or 12,000, which can be defined in terms of the IQ test of 50—an accepted definition for severe mental handicap—and in terms of behavioural problems. Let us say that we do not argue as to a group of between 40,000 and 150,000 on the one hand, and a group of 10,000 on the other, and that we accept the Minister's comments, which provided a ray of hope. If we can ring-fence those 10,000 people, there may be a basis for action.
The Minister spoke of the commitment made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in the all-party group, and added that he himself had given a similar assurance. I believe that I was at one of the meetings at which the Minister did so. We can welcome the


low disability allowance for people who otherwise would not receive anything, and I am certain that the 150,000 beneficiaries involved will be glad to receive it. However, there remains the problem of defining and ring-fencing the smaller number involved.

Mr. Scott: That smaller group must be stipulated in such a way that the definition can be applied by adjudication officers throughout the country. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and I could, with help, define the individuals concerned. However, it will be a more complicated exercise to devise terms that local offices can effectively implement.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister and I both know where the group starts, but we are not sure where it ends—and that could be the difficulty for local offices. The challenge before us is to draw up a workable definition that is as watertight as it can be, although there is usually some blurring around the edges. If that can be done, and if the Government can retain the will that they had in 1987 to devise a solution, that will provide a chink of light. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, in the conviction that we shall return to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 6, leave out lines 32 to 46.
This amendment is central to the Bill, because it aims to extend entitlement to all components of the disability living allowance to those who become eligible after the age of 65. In other words, it will remove the age bar at the crucial threshold of 65.
Under the Bill, those who become disabled after 65 will be entitled to the existing attendance allowance, but will receive no help with the costs of mobility. Nor will they qualify for the lower £10 rate of the attendance component. The Bill as drafted will not only reinforce a number of existing anomalies, but introduce new ones. A person who becomes disabled, for example, at age 63 could be entitled to £26·25p mobility component, plus the £10 care component—which he or she would retain for life. However, a person who happened to suffer a road accident at age 66, and who had identical care and mobility needs, would receive nothing. How can the Government justify that inequality?
It was argued repeatedly by Ministers in Committee that the OPCS survey showed that almost 70 per cent. of disabled adults are over the age of 60, and that the severity of disability increases in line with age. Almost half those having the most severe disabilities are aged over 75, yet the Bill would exclude the very people who need help most. Those over 65 are already unfairly excluded from receiving mobility allowance, and the Bill will further discriminate against older people with disabilities by denying them the new lower rate of DLA.
7.45 pm
It is pure hypocrisy to introduce a disability Bill and then deliberately exclude the group within the population containing 70 per cent. of that legislation's potential beneficiaries. The Government claim that they cannot afford to include that additional category. The Under-Secretary of State said that it would cost £2 billion to

extend mobility allowance to the over-65s, but there are good reasons for thinking that that figure is grossly exaggerated. I do not expect the hon. Lady to describe the precise method of calculation, although perhaps she will, but the figure of £2 billion seems to presume that well over half those aged 65 with moderate or severe disabilities would qualify. Considering how difficult it is to become eligible for benefit, that assumption is wildly excessive. The cost of removing the age bar, as the amendment suggests, would be far less than the Government pretend. I suppose that one must be realistic and not expect the Government to take the leap all in one, but the absence of any phasing-in provision is something that we strongly deplore.
The Government also like to argue that disablement is an integral part of the aging process, that older people with disabilities such as impairment of their sight or hearing are not really disabled because those conditions are just a part of growing old and therefore do not need to be addressed. I remind the House that the OPCS survey found that only 35 per cent.—slightly more than one in three—of people over 60 were disabled. Therefore, the majority of pensioners are free from disability—and those conditions that afflict the remainder cannot be dismissed as the natural consequences of old age.
Also in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State argued that the average income and expenditure of disabled persons is not much different from those of the non-disabled, and the OPCS survey was called in evidence in that regard. The Government argued that there was little need to help disabled pensioners meet the costs of their condition. That is a fallacy. People cannot spend what they do not have, and older disabled people on low incomes struggling to meet normal living expenses may not have the money to buy disability-related items. That is far and away the most likely explanation for the small difference in income between disabled and non-disabled pensioners.
Ministers resorted to yet more casuistry in Committee, when they asserted that pensioners had enjoyed large increases in average incomes, and that it is better to target the young disabled person, who has not had the chance to build up savings and a pension. Again, most disabled persons are to be found among older pensioners, who have also been excluded from the state earnings-related pension scheme and from the gradual build-up of occupational and personal pensions. That group is clearly in need of extra help, which has not been enjoyed by some pensioners over the past decade.
The majority of pensioners are on very low incomes. Any right hon. or hon. Member who tried to live on a pensioner's average income would rapidly discover the truth of that. Most pensioners rely on state benefits for at least three quarters of their income. It is impossible for older people to meet adequately the extra costs of disability on top of normal basic living expenses with such extremely low incomes. It is not true to say that disabled pensioners have higher incomes than younger disabled people, despite what the Minister said in Committee. The OPCS survey found the reverse. The income of a disabled single pensioner was 12 per cent. less than that of a younger disabled person. That is another reason why older disabled people need help.
The last argument that Ministers used in Committee was the most disreputable of all. They said that the over-65s will be no worse off than they are at present. But


they will be worse off as a result of the Bill, because those with milder disabilities will not be entitled to the lower rate of disability living allowance. It is quite unfair and wrong to establish a principle of paying a lower rate for younger disabled groups but to exclude older groups for whom it would be most relevant. However, what is much more important and what we really object to is the fact that the Government are descending to the type of argument which says that so long as the over-65s are no worse off it is OK. Even if that were true—which it is not—if that is the sum of 11 years of Tory Government, and the pinnacle of a major review of disability benefits after half a dozen OPCS surveys and a decade of waiting, it is not unfair to say that nothing so clearly reveals the shallowness of the Government's commitment to the disabled.
The Government response to the commitment is a touchstone of their attitude to the disabled. If they accept that commitment, we shall strongly welcome it, but if they reject it everyone will know that their rhetoric of a policy of community care, of providing the fullest and most independent life for elderly and disabled people, is exactly that—mere rhetoric and no more.

Miss Widdecombe: We have had a very constructive debate and I was sorry to note a more destructive tone of argument near the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—an argument which was aimed less at the specific amendment under discussion and more at a general, and not at all convincing, indictment of the Government's policy towards the elderly. However, when speaking to the amendment, the hon. Member made some valid points which deserve to be answered in some detail arid which might throw light on the Government's intentions with regard to the cut-off limit at 65.
First, when we said that no pensioner would be worse off, we were at pains to stress that we were not taking anything away. We have drawn up a Bill which extends a range of benefits to people who did not hitherto qualify. In doing so we had to decide where we would target the thrust of those additional resources and extra benefits. We did not say that we would take away from the elderly to give to younger people. We said that we would concentrate the thrust on younger people. That was decided not on a mere whim, but on the results of the survey, which clearly showed that there was a large and unmet need among younger disabled people.
However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was right that there is an analogy between the young person who is congenitally disabled, or was disabled early in his working life, who has not been able to build up the advantages of an occupational pension, and the older pensioner who retired before occupational pensions were as prevalent as they are today—thanks mainly to the Government's encouragement—and who was unable to make provision for old age in the same way as younger pensioners, if I may describe them as such, do.
Because we recognised that analogy, we recently concentrated £200 million of resources on income support for the poorer pensioner. We acknowledged that there was a need which had to be met. Although I do not want to broaden the argument unduly, I must say that that is a better use of resources, and a more intelligent way to give help to the elderly, than an across-the-board increase in all state pensions regardless of need. Albeit through a different route, we have been trying to tackle the very

problems that the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned. We have also tackled them through disability measures.
For example, mobility allowance was not even designed to be payable after the age of 65, never mind people qualifying for it. We have consistently extended the upper limit at which qualification would continue, so that no beneficiary has ever reached it. Right from the beginning, we said that there would not be an upper limit for DLA, so that once a person qualifies for it he will keep it.
During this argument we should not overlook people on attendance allowance. There is no third rate of attendance allowance. If we were to do what the hon. Member for Oldham, West suggests and allow people who are already over 65 to qualify for the third rate, it would not iron out an anomaly but would introduce a new one, because it would give rights to those on DLA which were not extended to those on attendance allowance.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me on the issue of costs, which I shall go into in some detail. The Opposition are looking for a figure, and in Committee we produced the figure of £2 billion. Previously, the figure quoted for the cost of extending help with mobility costs to people aged over 65 was more than £1 billion, but that was based on figures and numbers dating from the mid-1980s and was without the benefit of the OPCS survey. It showed that up to 1·5 million people—that figure was not dreamed up by the Department but was shown in the survey—aged over 65 might meet the qualifying conditions. However, there are considerable difficulties in making such estimates and I would be the first to agree with the hon. Gentleman that one cannot just assume that it would be 1·5 million. The Government's projection is, therefore, based on a lower figure. We estimate that it could be nearer 1·35 million people, which would produce the cost of £2 billion what we quoted. We did not make an exact science of that, but if it is the order of cost concerned, we have to ask ourselves whether that would be the best use of resources.
I stress to the hon. Member for Oldham, West that we take nothing away. To do what he suggests would create a further anomaly in respect of those on attendance allowance. We have chosen other routes to concentrate help on the poorer pensioner, whom he rightly identified, and whom we do not deny for one moment. We have tried to establish the best place to target our resources—the place of the largest unmet need. We have used the results of an independent survey and have not dreamed up the figures for ourselves. We have tried to come up with a Bill that vastly extends—as indeed it does—the range of benefits available to people who are not eligible at present, and we have tried to recognise a degree of sophistication of different needs within disability that was not recognised in the all-or-nothing policy before. By extending DLA without an upper limit of 65—once a person has qualified for it—and by doing the same through progressive stages with mobility allowance, we have again recognised and tried to benefit the older pensioner. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the amendment.

8 pm

Mr. Meacher: With the leave of the House, I speak again to the amendment. I recognise that the Minister, who is fairly new to the job, showed considerable skill in arguing a case which is indefensible. She did it as well as could probably be done. However, the argument is not


satisfactory. First, she talked about concentrating the thrust of extra expenditure where it is most needed—on the younger disabled. She called as witness the OPCS survey. As I said in my opening remarks, the OPCS survey shows that on average older disabled persons have a 12 per cent. lower income than younger disabled people. If the Government wish to concentrate on those in greatest need, the older disabled need the extra expenditure most.
The problem for the Government, which the hon. Lady conveniently skirted round, is purely that of cost. There are far more older disabled—70 per cent. of disabled people are over 60. If the Government concentrated expenditure where the need is greatest—on the older disabled—it would cost a great deal more. The Minister should be more honest and say that the Government are prepared to spend only a small amount and therefore they have determined the group on that basis, not on the basis of need.
Secondly, the Minister tried to protect the Government's flank by saying that the Government had given assistance to pensioners. She rolled out again the £200 million given to poorer pensioners on income support. It is somewhat brass-necked of a Minister—I am sure that the Secretary of State knows this perfectly well —to quote that figure, which was a figleaf to protect the Government's nakedness when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear on "News at One" that he proposed to means-test pensions. Not to put too fine a point on it, all hell broke loose and the Government quickly came forward with what might be called the Lawson embarrassment bonus—the £200 million. I am sure that pensioners are glad to receive it. I am pleased that the Government found another £200 million. But to make a virtue of what was a fiasco is a skill which even the Minister does not yet have.
Thirdly, the Minister talked about anomalies. She suggested that it would be anomalous to enable pensioners to have the lower £10 rate. She suggested that it would produce an anomaly because it did not extend to mobility allowance. I do not suggest that there must be an exact symmetry of structure between the parts of the overall allowance. If pensioners were asked whether they would like to qualify for the new lower rate or whether it worried them that it would be slightly out of symmetry with the mobility allowance, there is not much doubt about how they would reply.
In the end the argument comes down to cost. I listened carefully to the Minister. She quoted a cost of £1 billion, which I thought was the figure for 1990, but which she said referred to the mid-1980s. She said that 1·5 million persons over 65 might meet the qualifying conditions, but that the Government's best estimate was one and a third million and that it was not an exact science. I simply repeat what I said earlier. I should be amazed if the figure was anywhere near the Government's estimate, considering how difficult it is for people to qualify for the allowance. The numbers who can claim mobility allowance are remarkably low. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has had people coming to her surgeries complaining bitterly about the difficulties of obtaining mobility allowance.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman consistently says that he has difficulty believing the figures. But the figures are the result of an independent survey done on a

scientific basis, based on people who might meet the qualifying conditions, which we have further reduced, even before we reach a cost of £2 billion. Leaving aside his disbelief and his feeling that the figures must be wrong, what is his independent evidence that they are wrong?

Mr. Meacher: The Minister knows perfectly well that the Opposition do not have an army of civil servants. Nor do they have the vast resources of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Of course, I have no independent survey. She knows that perfectly well. Indeed, the Government's only source is the OPCS survey. We are not talking about the figures in the OPCS survey as though they were definitive in terms of entitlement. Entitlement is based on a judgment of the factual evidence from the survey about the levels of entitlement. That is rather a different question.
I am forced to accept that we shall not persuade the Government to make any significant improvement for elderly disabled people. I am sorry that the Minister took such exception to my remarks at the end of my speech. It is tragic that, after 10 years of waiting and half a dozen OPCS surveys, the mountains have been in labour and brought forth a mouse. That is not an unfair description of what has happened. Elderly disabled people expected better of the Government and their decision is disappointing. I still hope, bearing in mind the proximity of the next election, that the Government will be prepared to think again. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

MANAGEMENT OF DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

Mr. Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 25, leave out lines 30 to 33.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 19 and 22.

Mr. Scott: These are minor, technical and consequential amendments which reflect the fact that the Attendance Allowance Board will cease to be an adjudicating authority once DLA is introduced.
Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE: AMENDMENTS

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 26, line 30, leave out
at the highest or middle rate.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow carers who are caring for someone on the lower care component to receive the invalid care allowance. It is about preventing injustice which the Bill, as drafted, would introduce.
At present invalid care allowance can be claimed by carers only if the person for whom they care receives attendance allowance at either of the two existing rates. The Bill proposes that only the higher and middle rates of the care component will passport carers to the invalid care allowance. Those who care for people on the lower rate of


the care component will not be able to claim it, even if they meet all the other conditions of entitlement, including caring for that person for over 35 hours a week. That is intolerably unfair and self-defeating.
As I said in Committee, and as MENCAP continues very strongly to argue, by introducing a new lower level of attendance allowance, the Government have accepted the argument that attendance allowance, as it is now available, does not address the needs of many groups of the most needful people.
Those entitled to the new lower rate of the care component are people who require some level of care, either continuously or for periods in the day, and thus need a carer to be available. They may need help with personal care such as washing, dressing, cooking or other domestic tasks and shopping. They are people, often severely disabled, who may not be able to live in the community without a substantial level of informal care of this kind and who alternatively would need much more expensive institutional care. That is why the Government's stance is self-defeating.
ICA can be claimed only by people who, because of their caring responsibilities, are unable to work or study full time. Surely, in fairness, if a person, because of the care that she or he provides, is unable to work, she or he should be able to claim invalid care allowance as a benefit to replace earnings. At only £28·20 a week, invalid care allowance provides but very limited compensation for being unable to work and for providing care from which the taxpayer benefits. Yet the allowance does provide important recognition of the extremely valuable service that carers provide.
In a detailed briefing on this amendment, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will read, the Disability Alliance has drawn attention to the contradiction of not allowing people who care for an individual in receipt of the lowest level of care component to have access to invalid care allowance. Under the rules for ICA, however, carers are not entitled to the allowance unless they are caring for a "severely disabled person" for at least 35 hours per week. For the purpose of ICA, a severely disabled person is defined as someone in receipt of the attendance allowance. Schedule 2 tries to limit that definition, as from April 1992, to people who are in receipt of the highest or middle rates of disability living allowance. In other words, people on the lowest rate—£10—are not treated as being severely disabled and entitled to ICA, regardless of their circumstances and of the degree of care that they may need and actually receive.
This exclusion is in flat contradiction of the terms of other provisions of the Bill, since the £10 rate of the DLA will be payable only to people who are severely disabled, physically or mentally, under the new section 37ZB(1) that clause 1 inserts in the Social Security Act 1975. To get the £10 DLA, a person must be severely disabled, yet if a carer attempts to claim ICA, that person no longer counts as being severely disabled. Thus the amendment is concerned as much with preventing the enactment of bad law as with calling for fairness and justice.
I turn briefly to a case that was put to me by the Spastics Society. The case says more about the unacceptability of this part of the Bill than could any amount of formal argument. Janet Allen is a 21-year-old with cerebral palsy who lives with her parents. She is cared for by her mother. Her father works, but earns a low wage. Janet attends a local day centre five days a week, and travels there and

back by the centre's minibus. She and her mother have worked out a routine that enables Janet to cope with her very severe disability as well as she now does. Janet qualifies for the lower-rate care component of DLA. Mrs. Allen works as a school meals assistant one hour every weekday and receives a net wage of £14·50 a week. She would like to work more, but this is the only job she could find that fits in with caring for Janet. One of their problems is that the minibus can turn up as late as 10 o'clock in the morning and as early as half past 2 in the afternoon, so Mrs. Allen does not have much time to do a job in between, as well as go shopping and perform all the other tasks that she cannot perform when Janet is at home.
8.15 pm
Because Mr. Allen earns so little, Mrs. Allen would have liked to work full time. However, she can work only five hours a week because she has to care for Janet. In fact, she counts herself lucky that she has found any job that fits in with Janet's hours at the day centre. The three of them get on well together, and neither the parents nor Janet want the alternative of institutional care. The lack of independent living schemes in the area certainly means that Janet's only alternative would be a residential care home. Mrs. Allen is angry that other carers who provide care for no more hours than she does get ICA while she does not. ICA would make a significant financial contribution to the household, would provide Mrs. Allen with a more independent income, and would make her feel that she, as a carer, was being treated less unjustly. Because of the ICA earnings disregard, Mrs. Allen would be able to keep all her earnings of £14·50 a week, in addition to her ICA.
For the purpose of ICA, a severely disabled person is defined as someone in receipt of the attendance allowance. I have sought to show the absurdity of what is proposed in the Bill, and I believe that Janet's case sets in very bold relief the need for this amendment. By accepting the amendment, and by looking at the compelling case for amendment No. 10, which we hoped would be linked, the Government have a chance to show some appreciation of the level and value of the work that carers take on. They would do well also to reflect on the amount of money that carers save them by struggling, often in circumstances of daunting difficulty, to care for relatives or friends at home, rather than place them in residential care.
As Mencap has pointed out, from April 1991 the cost of paying a carer invalid care allowance will be £31·25 a week. This is almost nothing compared to the costs that would be involved if the people they look after were in institutional care. In a survey of 16 registered Mencap Homes Foundation homes in London, it was found that the estimated weekly charges for 1991–92 ranged from £263 to £680. The residential care allowance available from the Government next April—as the Minister, above all other right hon. and hon. Members, will know—will be £218 in London. This is significantly higher than the current level of invalid care allowance, yet, as the Government must see, even the residential care allowance of £218 will not cover the cost of care. Have the Government made any estimate of the amount that they save by relying on the dedication of carers? If not, why not? And will they agree to offer an estimate?
Alongside other fundamental criticisms of this Bill, the needs of carers have again been totally ignored.


Those are not my words but the assessment of organisations whose knowledge and experience of the problems and needs of carers none of us can question. Invalid care allowance is an already inadequate benefit in terms of the amount of money paid and of the number of people who are excluded due to being over retirement age. The exclusion of further individuals who provide a significant level of care to people who could not live independently compounds its inadequacies very seriously.

Mr. Ashley: I do not intend to say much about the amendment—the case is so obvious. The only point that I want to make is that the number of people cared for by a carer is completely irrelevant. To penalise the carer because she happens to look after more than one person is preposterous and the height of absurdity. If anything, a carer should receive more money and a medal for looking after more than one person.
I do not understand the Government's thinking; it is absolutely inane. It is ludicrous to penalise the carer because one of the disabled people whom she is looking after receives a lower level of care component. The Government are splitting hairs. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they are. If ever there were a time for magnanimity, this is it.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I, too, do not wish to waste the time of the House by referring in detail to the amendment. Both my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) have already covered the ground adequately and, as always, very well.
I want to deal with the position of a group of carers who had hoped to benefit from the Bill. Sadly, it will not lead to additional financial help being offered to many people. As has already been said, many of them are women who care for severely disabled people for 35 hours a week. However, the persons for whom they care receive only the lower rate of the disability living allowance. That group of carers cannot claim the invalid care allowance. However, they offer a great deal of support and care and thereby improve considerably the quality of life of the persons for whom they care. At the same time they save the Government considerable sums of money. It is not an insignificant group of people—there are about 6 million carers, of whom 1·4 million care for people for more than 20 hours a week.
Invalid care allowance is the only benefit for carers. As I have already mentioned, it is available only to those who care for people for more than 35 hours a week. At £28·20, that amounts to less than £1 an hour. The Opposition do not argue that everyone who qualifies for the lower £10 component requires care for 35 hours a week, but what about those who do? They may have a carer who is not working and who is providing at least 35 hours a week of care. Why should that carer be denied any benefit in respect of the substantial care that she provides, as well as being denied the carer's premium?
The example that I intend to give can, I am sure, be repeated over and over again. Let us take the case of a 58-year-old divorced woman caring for her son who is aged 25 and a schizophrenic. He does not receive attendance allowance, but he cannot be left alone for long periods. She may also be caring for her daughter who has learning difficulties. Her daughter may be mobile, able to feed, dress and toilet herself and not requiring regular

supervision. The daughter does not receive attendance allowance, but she may be eligible for the lower rate of the attendance component of the disability living allowance. Her mother might be working for only a few hours a week and earning about £22. She would not be eligible for the invalid care allowance because neither of her children requires 35 hours of care a week. She is also denied the opportunity and satisfaction of being able to go out to work. She is thus denied the opportunity to increase the amount of money available to her and her family. Such cases are not untypical.
If the Government are genuine when they say that they care about people in the community and that they are concerned about the needs not just of those who are carers but of others, too, they ought to accept the amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: I join those Opposition Members who have paid tribute to carers, who often perform a tremendously difficult job. Their contribution to care in the community and to the general well-being of elderly disabled people and less privileged dependants is crucial. They make life bearable for those who need to be looked after. No one underestimates the importance of their role. However, the amendment is specifically directed at invalid care allowance. That is not a payment for caring services. It is not a payment to enable a disabled person to buy in care. Invalid care allowance recognises that if someone cares for another person for 35 hours a week, it is unlikely that that person will be able to maintain a full-time job. The figure of 35 hours is adopted because that is the average length of the working week. It is assumed, therefore, that if a person devotes 35 hours a week to caring for someone else, he or she is unlikely to take up gainful employment.
That does not entirely prevent those who care intermittently for others for 35 hours a week from taking up outside employment. Much has been said in the debate about the figure of £28, but that is on top of the earnings disregard. It is not a payment for care and should not be regarded as being set at an insulting level. That figure takes into account the fact that such a person has forgone income from work.
The test of whether someone requires that degree of attention is that he or she requires prolonged and repeated attention or constant supervision, inasmuch as that person might endanger himself or herself because of the condition, or needs full-time supervision, or has other major requirements. That enables people to qualify for attendance allowance. Even if people qualify for the lower of the two top rates of disability living allowance, they will still have to satisfy those very stringent requirements. Invalid care allowance is not designed for people who need only a couple of hours attention when getting up in the morning, two more hours when they go to bed at night and a little attention at lunchtime. It is designed for those who require attention for a very large part of the working week. It is inappropriate, therefore, to link the invalid care allowance to a level of care that has been introduced specifically because we recognise that there are people whose needs are not being met under the present system, since they do not have that high degree of need. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) appeared to be speaking to an amendment that was not selected, because invalid care allowance does not come within the scope of the Bill. However, she has identified a


very important group of people—those who are caring for people for 35 hours a week and who are therefore precluded from taking up full-time or gainful employment. They do not, however, devote those 35 hours of care just to one person; they split it between several members of the same family. The hon. Lady knows that, although we cannot do anything for that group of people in this Bill, the Government have taken into account her concern. She will also be aware that since Committee, when she raised the problem, we have carefully looked at the provisions and that we are still looking at them. I cannot guarantee the outcome of the investigation. We may decide that the present provisions are right. Nevertheless, we are examining them. I hope that that reassures her that the Government have not dismissed her concern.

Mr. Alfred Morris: For my guidance and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), is it possible for the Minister to give any time scale? When does she expect to reach conclusions on what is a very important matter? Does she feel that in the case that I mentioned—that of Janet Allen—she may, before long, have some helpful message for a family which, I am sure she will agree, is in considerable and urgent need?

Miss Widdecombe: I pay tribute to the care being given by Mrs. Allen, and I am not unsympathetic, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that he based much of his case on that one instance. I do not mean this dismissively but, if we are to try to legislate for things such as the times of minibuses, it will become an impossible task. We are asking one basic question: is the person who is disabled in need of constant and repeated attention? I can give the right hon. Gentleman no hope whatever that we would be able to extend the range to help the case that he has mentioned. I can give him no specific timetable for the outcome of our investigations into the case of caring for more than one person during the 35 hours a week. Obviously, many things need to be looked at, including costs, definition and whether the provisions are adequate now. I cannot give him a guarantee about when we will reach a conclusion, but I can guarantee that we are looking at it seriously. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I hope that this extremely important amendment will produce a more positive and sympathetic response in the other place. I shall not press it now and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 26, line 31, at end insert—
'4A. In subsection (4) of section 165D of that Act (restrictions on entitlement to benefit in certain cases of error) in the definition of "adjudicating authority"—

(a) in paragraph (a), after the words "a social security appeal tribunal" there shall be inserted the words ", a disability appeal tribunal"; and

No. 20, in page 27, line 11, at end insert—
'7A. At the end of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Social Security Act 1980 (proof of decisions of statutory authorities) there shall be added the words "and a disability appeal tribunal appointed under Schedule 10A to that Act".'.

No. 21, in page 27, line 13, leave out
'the Social Security Act 1980'
and insert 'that Act.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 6

INTRODUCTION OF DISABILITY WORKING ALLOWANCE

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 38, leave out 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 8, in page 10, line 46, at end insert
'or
(d) When the claim for a disability working allowance is made or is treated as made he has a physical or mental disability which is likely to last for not less than six months.'.

Mr. Meacher: Again, this is a very important amendment because it covers the central question of who qualifies for the disability working allowance. As hon. Members know, as the Bill is presently drafted, a person qualifies only if he or she is over 16, in paid work, has a physical or mental disability that puts him or her at a disadvantage in getting a job and does not have an income above a certain level, and where neither the person nor their family is entitled to family credit. In addition, a person must be in receipt of disability related benefits such as invalidity benefit, the severe disablement allowance, a disability premium included in income support, housing benefit or poll tax benefit, the disability living allowance or the attendance allowance.
One has only to read out that set of conditions for the problem to be clear. Large numbers of people with disabilities will be excluded either because they are already working, because they have a disability that does not satisfy the criteria for a qualifying benefit, because they have a disability that developed while in work or because, for whatever reason—it may be choice or a lack of information or advice—they have not claimed one of the qualifying benefits, even though they meet the eligibility conditions. It is for those reasons that the purpose of the amendment is to add a further qualifying category, namely, someone who has
a physical or mental disability which is likely to last for not less than six months.
The sort of people who would gain from this amendment but who are unlikely at present to passport to the disability working allowance include partially sighted people, people with arthritis, a mental handicap or multiple sclerosis. Those are just some of the main categories. Not all those groups are likely to be in receipt of a full-time incapacity benefit.
If the Government are sincere in wanting people with disabilities to get jobs and to be able to keep them, I would expect them to accept this amendment. It is carefully drawn in stipulating that the disability must be likely to last for at least six months, precisely so that it meets the Government's concern to exclude people with short-term disabilities.
Also, the structure of the amendment—the Minister will be aware of this—is no different from severe disablement allowance, where some claimants are automatically passported through the 75 per cent. disablement test but others may still qualify if they provide other evidence of their disability. We have modelled the structure of our proposal on that. The amendment simply builds on existing proposals within the disability working allowance.
Under those arrangements, at the time of a second claim after six months and for subsequent claims, claimants—according to a DSS note—will be given a list of functional disabilities and asked to show which apply to them. A simple point then arises. If the Department is developing a functional test to apply to claimants after six months of claiming disability working allowance, why cannot it be applied to claimants who are making an initial claim for disability working allowance but who are not receiving one of the passporting benefits?
That is the central question, and I hope that the Minister will accept the force of my point. If he does not, I should like to know how he can accept that the Department is developing that functional test for second and further claims but is not prepared to accept it for initial claims. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
When this was moved in Committee—I have the advantage of knowing the Minister's reply—the Minister said that it undermined the administrative simplicity of the system and that he was reluctant to return to the complexities of qualifying medical examinations. I do not think that any hon. Member wants to return to the complexities of qualifying medical examinations. However, what the Minister did not see and what we are trying to explain to the Government today is that the argument is irrelevant when a functional test of disability will exist for repeat claims for disability working allowance.
It is not true that medical examinations are needed to provide evidence of physical or mental disability. Why cannot such evidence be provided by a simple self-assessment questionnaire? I would be the first to agree that it should be backed up by supplementary evidence where that is needed. After all, since the Government have agreed to that for the purposes of the disadvantage test, which they favour, why not for this purpose?
Another of the Government's objections was that the amendment would require adjudication officers to make decisions involving complex judgments which might lead to more errors and dissatisfaction. Of course we all want to avoid errors and dissatisfaction, but if evidence of physical or mental disability can be based on a list of questions aimed at identifying a person's functional disabilities, the assessment would be straightforward. That again is what we propose. We do not believe that it involves complexity. We believe that it can be done in a relatively straightforward and common-sense manner.
The Government's other objection—as far as I know it is the only other objection—is that the disadvantage test is simpler. In Committee, the Minister said:
We used this definition because we did not want to have to go into detail about the particular incapacity of individuals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 January 1991; c. 201.]
Again, hurray for that. No one wants to go into detail about the particular incapacity of individuals. Yet, according to the measures used by the OPCS researchers, in order to reach a measure of disability, the stages that will have to be gone through include selecting areas of disability, whether locomotion, dexterity, continence or any of the others, assessing the limitations resulting from each type of disability, rating the limitations on a 15-point scale of severity, establishing a common lower level or

threshold for judging combinations of disability, and so on. In other words, there are considerable complexities involved in the disadvantage test.
For the reasons I have given, I believe that there are fewer difficulties in our proposal compared with the Government's advocacy of the disadvantage test. If the Government are sincere about wanting all disabled people to have the fullest opportunity to get and maintain jobs, I hope that they will accept the amendment and ensure that those who are excluded will be able to have the benefit.

Mr. Scott: I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The Government cannot accept the amendments, although I understand why he has tabled them. When I look at what he is trying to achieve, it arouses some sympathy, but I hope that I can explain why it would undermine what we are trying to do by the introduction of DWA and why it would radically change the character of the benefit itself.
We made it clear in "The Way Ahead" that we are setting out to help people on incapacity benefits to make the transition into work when they are ready to do so. We set out a number of ways in which to achieve that. Among them were ways of helping people on the margins of capacity to work by removing the barriers within the benefits system which currently put them off making the attempt to get into work for the first time or to return to work after an illness or injury. The barriers are inherent in the current benefits system, where much too sharp a distinction is drawn between capacity and incapacity for work.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that we could avoid this if we went down the route he suggested, but I made it one of the priorities in the introduction of the new benefit to avoid the need for a claimant to undergo a medical examination. We also made a special effort to avoid asking adjudication officers to make decisions involving complex judgments. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that I used that argument in Committee. None the less, it is a strong argument, and I still feel strongly about the point.
I admit that the change is partly to make the processing of claims more straightforward and partly because it removes an area where there is considerable potential for errors and for decisions with which claimants are dissatisfied for various reasons. If we had to rely simply on the evidence of the functional test which the hon. Gentleman has described, without confirmation provided by the evidence of receipt of a qualifying benefit, a much more complex and thorough test would have to be applied for someone to qualify for the benefit. What we have suggested is simple and easy for staff to administer quickly, efficiently and accurately; it will also be simple for potential claimants to understand their entitlement.
I have already said that the amendment would widen the scope of DWA so much that it would entirely change the character of the benefit. I do not think that we could avoid a medical examination. It could, of course, bring in a large number of people at considerable cost.
Having said all that, I think that everyone knows the intention of the new benefit. We will monitor its effect carefully to make sure that it is doing the job for which it is designed. DWA is a new benefit, an entirely new concept within the social security system. I and my successor will monitor it carefully. At this point, I cannot accept anything like the amendment which has been proposed.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I find that a disappointing response. I do not think that he has seriously taken note of the arguments that I used. It would not be unfair to say that he has simply repeated the same arguments that we heard in Committee. I tried, perhaps not as successfully as I would have liked, to answer those arguments.

Mr. Scott: indicated dissent.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I believe that I did answer them. The problem is that the Minister simply repeated the original arguments without taking account of the points that I put against them.
We are agreed about not wanting to see disabled people having to undergo difficult or complex medical examinations. We do not want complex decisions being taken by adjudicating officers. The point that I was making, which he has not answered at all, is that the functional test of disability is the one that the Department is itself proposing for repeat claims. I asked a question which the Minister did not answer; if it can be done the second, third or fourth time, why cannot it be done the first time?

Mr. Scott: Precisely because it is clear that the person has a qualifying benefit, which in a sense is prima facie evidence of entitlement to the allowance. If a person does not have that, it means that we would have to have a complex examination or test, which would undermine the simplicity of the benefit.

Mr. Meacher: In that case, the argument between us simply revolves round whether a functional test of disability is adequate in the first instance. It is clear from the exchange that the Minister believes that a medical examination cannot be avoided; in his view, it is requisite. We have to take account of the considerable evidence provided by the disability organisations—a serious, thoughtful and reflective body of opinion, with enormous experience of dealing with the disabled. It is their view that the functional test of disability could be effective. No doubt the Minister would say that they would take that view.
Although the Minister did not make much of this, I suspect that the real reason for his decision is that he believes that, if a functional test were to be used in the first instance, it would widen the scope rather too much, and we would be back once again to the question of cost. I suspect that he let that out a little carelessly, but perhaps I should be grateful for his honesty. I suspect that that is the real reason. I do not think that there is a technical problem. I believe that the Government wish to constrain the number of beneficiaries reasonably tightly and that the Department believes that it can do that only on the basis of a medical examination.
I can only stress the arguments that I used at the beginning of my remarks about the considerable number of people who will be disappointed. They believe that they have entitlement, but they will find that they are excluded. That will rebound on the Government. I support the purpose behind the new benefit, but I believe that it is tragic and short-sighted to exclude a significant number of

disabled people. The amendment would enable people who are excluded to be included. It is a great pity that they will be omitted.
I hope that, once again, the Government will reflect further on the argument and on this exchange. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 48, after `percentage', insert
'(which shall not exceed 40%)'.
This small amendment arises from a debate in Committee, in which we sought to reduce the taper of 40 per cent. to encourage disabled people into work. The Minister decided that the Government could not afford that, which showed their lack of foresight. They should try to encourage disabled people into work.
We proved in Committee, and again today, that disabled people require more expenditure, attention and care than able-bodied people. We ask the Government to reconsider a reduction in the taper of 40 per cent. It would cost the Government considerably less than they suggested in Committee, and encouraging disabled people into work by giving them more money would be a worthwhile measure. A 94 per cent. tax on extra earnings is extortionate, and we would not impose that on anybody else.

Miss Widdecombe: A shallower taper would give more money to all recipients, but it would give most to those who are better off. We do not regard that as a sensible use of the £30 million that it would cost, so I must resist the amendment.

Mr. McKay: I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. We shall return to the subject, at which time we will remind her of her words. Many people will be disappointed, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 31, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 165D(4), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "adjudicating authority", the words "the Attendance Allowance Board,".'. —[Mr. Newton.]

Clause 12

REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 15, line 24, at beginning insert—

'.—(1) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions)

(a) regulations under Chapter II of Part II of the 1975 Act which relate to disability living allowance and are made before the day in respect of which disability living allowance is payable;
(b) regulations under sections 100A to 100D or section 104A of that Act which relate to attendance allowance or disability living allowance and are made before that day;—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not want to make a lengthy speech. We did well in Committee, with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in examining the Bill in considerable detail, and today we have had a good and constructive Report stage.
The Bill will introduce two important new benefits. The disability living allowance will combine and extend the impact of attendance and mobility allowances in an effective way. The disability working allowance will, for the first time, offer a real incentive for disabled people who wish to work and can work to move, as it were, step by step into employment and contribute effectively to the enterprise that they support.
I said on Second Reading that the pattern of benefits that we have introduced is but part of what all hon. Members concerned about the subject want—a series of measures that improve the lives of disabled people. Accessibility to employment is an immensely important part of that, but so too is accessibility to leisure facilities and to the other matters that the rest of us are able, for the time being at least, to take for granted.
Technology will make it increasingly possible for disabled people to acquire independence and to earn their own living. I spend every Friday that I can away from Whitehall, visiting the people who work for disabled people and who try their best, through medical or technological progress, to help them to improve the quality of their life. The Bill is an important part of that overall package, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standing Committee who, over a period of many weeks, tried hard to improve the Bill in many important respects.
The Minister is aware that we regard the disability living allowance mainly as the bundling together of two existing allowances. As the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware, the outcome is strongly criticised by all the organisations of and for disabled people. He represents DLA and disability working allowance as the most generous offer since the miracle of the loaves and fishes. That is not how potential recipients of the new benefits see the provision he is making.
We have sought to give voice to the views of those who spend their lives on case work with disabled people of all kinds. I have the impression that the Minister tried to convince his Treasury colleagues that improvements to the Bill should be made. That has not happened and in Committee, as again today, he was unable to respond as positively as we wished even to some of the most compelling claims on behalf of people who are disabled physically, mentally and sensorily.
I hope very much that, in another place, it will be possible to improve the Bill in the ways we seek. We shall certainly, at any further opportunity, come back to the case that we have argued for much better provision for Britain's 6·5 million disabled people, their families and carers.
All of us know that there is a vast agenda of unmet need. Over the past 20 years, there has been much progress. This is still, however, a very neglected area of social policy. We must all hope that, before the Bill

receives Royal Assent, it will go much further towards what disabled people and their organisations have been asking for. I believe their claims are reasonable. We shall go on doing our best to reflect them here in the House of Commons.

Mr. Ashley: The Bill is a tragically missed opportunity to make a great advance for disabled people. I welcome the few crumbs, but I believe that it is a missed opportunity for a thousand reasons, including three main reasons.
First, the Bill fails to deal with the problem of the cost of disablement. We have explained that ad infinitum. The costs of disability are fundamental to the enjoyment of life. People who cannot have the costs met by the Government are living in a style that is, to say the least, unfortunate —or, to put it more realistically, degrading. I am sorry that the Government have missed this opportunity.
Secondly, a group of disabled people are being shunted in the wrong direction—into care of the local authority. We used to use the phrase that the problem was "being swept under the carpet". In this case, disabled people are being dropped on to the local authority. I regret that, because local authorities simply cannot deal with the problems of disabled people.
Thirdly, the Bill fails inasmuch as, in all the problems of disabled people that have been addressed by the Government, no coherent structure has been put forward by the various Ministers who have spoken. That is a failure of neglect. The Government are neglecting to cope with the fundamental problems of physically and mentally disabled people. I regret to say that, but those are my real feelings about the Bill.

9 pm

Mrs. Heal: For people who are unemployed today, finding work in the present climate can be difficult. They might be teenagers with some GCSEs or with some practical ability, but they will still meet problems in seeking work. They might be young mothers who are trying either to return to work or to obtain work to supplement the family income and so help with the ever-increasing costs of maintaining a home and a family. They might be single and trying to live independently, either by buying or renting their own home. They might be older people who have been employed and then made redundant.
I will add one further description to those categories of people which will make things even more difficult for them. They may also be coping with a disability. Their chances of finding work are then made even more difficult. They and the many organisations that represent people with disabilities looked forward to the Government's proposals.
Last year, the Minister spoke of new horizons for people with disabilities. Sadly, many who had hoped to see some opportunity of work or of increasing their income will be disappointed. The introduction of the disability living allowance and of the disability working allowance fails to meet their needs. The horizon is somewhat cloudy.
If the Government mean what they say about providing horizons, about providing new opportunities and about enabling people to progress through to employment and away from dependency, they would have accepted the amendments that the Opposition tabled.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

European Community Documents

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to the motion on milk quotas.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that the motion is identical to a motion passed yesterday morning by Standing Committee A on European Legislation. You will be aware that, normally, with other such Committees in the past, the motion that was passed stood on the remaining Orders of the Day for at least a day to enable any hon. Member to table an amendment if he so chose. If any hon. Member had chosen to do so today, it would be a manuscript amendment. Is it in the best practice of the House to table the motion on the effective Orders today? If so, is it in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not out of order. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I very much hope that his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House.

MILK QUOTAS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),
That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18th January 1991 relating to rules for the application of levy in the milk and milk products sector; regrets the precipitate action taken by the Commission to alter quota legislation; and supports the steps taken by the Government in opposing this proposal.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Air Traffic (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. David Wilshire: Last September the Government asked the Civil Aviation Authority to advise on whether the traffic distribution rules should continue for London and said that by March this year the CAA's advice should be forthcoming. In November the Government brought forward the timetable and asked for the advice by mid-January. The result was the CAA's report, CAP578, published on 22 January.
The traffic distribution rules are technical and have far-reaching consequences. They were introduced de facto in 1977 and were made formal by the Government in 1979. Among other things, they seek to affect Heathrow and British aviation in a significant way. They seek to restrict entry to Heathrow to those airlines already having rights to land there. They impose whole or partial bans on charter flights, on all cargo flights and on business and general aviation at Heathrow. They set out in 1977 to encourage the use of London Gatwick. The purpose of the rules, when first introduced, was to limit the pressure on Heathrow and encourage the development of Gatwick.
Against that background, it is remarkably disappointing that the CAA's report is, to put it mildly, wishy-washy. I find it very naive. Its conclusions are singularly limp and unconvincing. For example, paragraph 4.6 on page 14 says:
As several respondents pointed out, the existing rule has heavily distorted the development of services at Heathrow and Gatwick. The Authority's predisposition is therefore to recommend abolition of the rule unless the arguments point firmly in favour of its retention.
It goes on to say that, on the balance of advantage, rule 1 should be abolished, and in paragraph 4.7 it says:
If Rule 1 were removed the Authority sees little logic in retaining Rules 2 and 3.
One could hardly call that gripping or convincing stuff. It means, "You might as well do that because we are not quite sure." It is in that spirit that I criticise the report.
I have initiated this debate because I am one of 14 what might be described as Heathrow Members. We are all deeply worried about the implications of the report. Perhaps I should make it clear for the record who we 14 are, and as the hour is earlier than usual for the Adjournment, I assure any of my hon. Friends who happen to turn up that I shall be happy to allow them to occupy some of the time available.
I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Esher (Mr. Taylor), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn); my right hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie); and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground). I name them because it is important to realise how many hon. Members are affected by the report, and in so far as it is possible for me to claim to speak on behalf


of my hon. Friends, my remarks tonight represent very much a heartfelt contribution from all the hon. Members I have named.

Mr. Michael Stern: I apologise to my hon. Friend in advance because I shall not be able to stay beyond 10 o'clock and so will not hear all the debate. Does he agree that interest in this subject goes wider than those famous 14? As a result of the current consultation exercise on the distribution of air traffic into and from the south-east, the number of constituencies affected by decisions taken in relation to the CAA report and what happens in that connection in the south-east concern the whole of the south of the country and the midlands. We in Bristol are as intimately affected by those decisions as are the 14 right hon. and hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Wilshire: I accept my hon. Friend's point and shall come to the national implications. It is just that 14 of us see a clear constituency interest at stake and are working together to try to protect a group of people in that part of the south-east. My hon. Friend is right to say that the report has serious implications for Bristol airport and his constituency might have poorer air services were the recommendations in the report to go ahead.
The 14 of us have already prepared a document setting out our concerns, which we have put to the Secretary of State, urging him not to proceed in that way. I should like to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for meeting us at such short notice.
I shall summarise for the House the concerns that we have been considering for the past few days, which fall into two groups: first, the local aspects about which, as a group of Heathrow hon. Members, we are rightly concerned; and secondly, the national and international implications that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) mentioned. I shall place those concerns in the context of Government policy. The report starts by explaining that the CAA was given four policy objectives and we might usefully test how far the report has met those objectives. The first policy objective is:
To take into account the full extent of the contribution which may be made by airports outside the London area"—
exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. Paragraph 3.2 states that
abolition would have a mixed effect.
It should be remembered that we are trying to benefit the regional airports outside London. The effects mentioned in the report include fewer regional flights into Heathrow, less choice at regional airports and making it harder for regional airports to make a profit and contribute to the national aviation policy. Thus the report fails its first test. It does not meet the first policy objective.
The second policy objective that the CAA was given was
to make effective and efficient use of existing and planned airport facilities in the UK and of available and planned airspace capacity
If we consider the current situation—the terminal capacity being used at the three airports in the south-east, the runway capacity, and how much of the night quota is being used—we discover that: at London Heathrow, 102 per cent. of the terminal capacity, 99 per cent. of the runway capacity and 99 per cent. of the night quota is

already taken up. At Gatwick, there is a similar pattern —88 per cent. of the terminal capacity, 86 per cent. of the runway capacity and 96 per cent. of the night quota are being used. But at Stansted, only 14 per cent. of the terminal capacity, 30 per cent. of the runway capacity and 10 per cent. of the night quota is being used.
The report suggests, however, that more traffic should be directed towards Heathrow. Such advice flies in the face of full terminals, full runways and a full night quota. Thus the report fails its second test—to meet the second policy objective.
The third policy objective is
to promote competition among airlines in all markets to the benefit of users and so as to encourage a sound and competitive multi-airline industry in Britain with a variety of airlines of different characteristics serving the whole range of travellers' needs.
The report, however, suggests scrapping the rules. We must consider how that would affect the third policy objective—it would certainly not produce more slots, or lead to a bigger choice over a longer time at Heathrow. The report makes it clear that it would kill competition for Heathrow from Gatwick and Stansted. It would have exactly the opposite effect to that stated in the policy and do nothing for competition on short-haul routes. Indeed, the report spells out in words of one syllable that something else would have to happen if competition in the short-haul market were to be improved. Therefore, the report fails its third test, because it does not meet that policy objective either.
The last of the policy objectives is
to further the contribution of civil aviation to the UK economy.
However, the report says that scrapping will not do. Paragraph 3.19 states:
There is little evidence in terms of the wider effects on the economy as a whole … several foreign airlines would stand to gain … Much would therefore depend on the relative balance of advantage to Virgin on the one hand and to the loss to BA and the gain to these foreign new entrants on the other.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the most important points, because if the CAA proposals are accepted, they are likely to lead to an increase in long-haul flights into Heathrow to the disadvantage of our own flag carrier, British Airways? It would be quite wrong even to contemplate that while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is engaged in discussions in relation to the United Airlines' application for the Pan Am slots at Heathrow.

Mr. Wilshire: That is precisely what the CAA admits in the paragraph from which I quoted, because it says that Virgin will gain, provided that another British airline lost. It says that the real gainers would be foreign airlines. We have to compare that with the stated objective of making a contribution to the United Kingdom economy. The only contribution arising from the scrapping of the rules would be to foreign airlines, their shareholders and foreign governments. I hope that I have made it clear that the CAA has failed properly to respond to any of the four policy objectives.
Another issue in relation to the policy objectives needs to be stated. There is not a word in the policy objectives or anywhere in the report about people who live near any airport. The objectives and the report do not contain a word about the social and environmental implications of scrapping rules or doing anything else. The report makes


it clear that we must consider the interests of airlines and their travellers. It is absolutely essential for the Government also to consider the interests of those who live near airports, because they have rights, too. The report is very remiss in making no reference whatever to such matters.
I readily accept that my constituents are all in favour of more choice and more competition. They would welcome better services at Heathrow and elsewhere, but not at any price. They see the scrapping of these proposals as leading to more noise, more traffic chaos on the roads near airports, more ancillary buildings such as hotels and hangars, and a greater demand for housing, of which we do not have enough at the moment. It is a one-sided bargain to do things for airlines and travellers while making life a misery for people who have to live near the airports. That is the policy context as I see it.
Given the disastrous attempt that the report has made to address that, we should look at local issues which are constituency matters for the 14 of us. They are all about creating extra pressure at Heathrow. The report admits that if its advice is accepted, pressure on Heathrow airport will increase in six ways. Airlines will fly into Heathrow for the first time. It will result in requests to transfer flights from Gatwick to Heathrow, and in little aircraft being swapped for big ones that can carry more passengers. It will result in charter flights arriving and in more cargo flights coming in and out when they feel like it, and it will produce even more pressure from business and general aviation.
Despite those six factors, nowhere in the report does the CAA make any attempt to quantify the amount of pressure that would be generated. Without the figures, it gaily goes on to propose that something should happen. Sadly, it is also beyond my personal resources to quantify the figures. The best that I have been able to do in the short time available is look at the current situation and try to draw a few tentative conclusions from it.
The current pressures at Heathrow look something like this. From the existing users who operate there within the rules, the bids for 1991 have resulted in requests for 10,000 more slots than can be accommodated. Without changing anything, 10,000 extra slots have been requested.
During peak hours, 9 am to 1 pm, Monday to Friday, there are 117 long-haul departures from Gatwick. The argument is that long-haul flights will focus on Heathrow and will transfer from Gatwick. We already have 10,000 slots being looked for which are not there and we have the prospect of up to 117 departures coming from Gatwick to Heathrow.
But what is available? The best figure that I can find for spare slots in the peak time, Monday to Friday, to put against that 117 is just nine. That is all that is available unless we take into the calculation what would become available if flights were allowed in between 5 am and 6 am in the restricted period. That would provide another 155 slots. Looking at the basic statistics, therefore, it is fairly obvious that that is the only place at which the pressure could be accommodated.
But the Government must insist on calculations of what the pressure really would be before any decisions are taken. I say that with all the feeling that I can muster. They must allay the worries of local people. First, they must allay the worries of local people about night flights. They are the thing, above all else, that disturbs people who live near airports. The problem of night flights is in a class of

its own compared with all the other many troubles that we have. Day flights cause trouble, but most people who live near airports understand that their livelihood depends on day flights. It is the problem of night flights that we must address.
We need look no further than the submission made by the BAA to the CAA when it was drawing up its report to see that it is blindingly obvious that if the report was accepted the pressure would have to be relieved by more night flights. The BAA says in its document:
To cope with additional long-haul services, consideration will have to be given to shortening the night restrictions period by say half an hour in the morning and/or increasing the quota.
There we have it. There is the admission that that is the only way in which anything can be done to ease the pressure that would be created, and that would be a disaster for all those people living near all the airports in the south-east.
The second thing about which the Government need to reassure local people is whether more flights would produce even more of a demand for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. It is often forgotten that terminal capacity is part of the slot allocation calculation. With larger aircraft replacing smaller aircraft and extra flights, the result, as sure as day follows night, is more passengers. If the terminals are already full and there are yet more passengers, more terminals have to be built.
That will further complicate surface access, requiring more junctions on motorways such as the M25 and the M4 where there is already chaos. Somebody will have to decide on a site for a new sewage works and then somebody will have to face up to the problem of the need for more parking space. There will be greater demand for labour when there is no job pool anyway, more demand for housing when there is already insufficient near Heathrow, and all the ancillary developments, such as hotels, hangars, workshops and so on, will require land which is not readily available.

Mr. Shersby: I agree that it is vital to quantify the effects on Heathrow of the proposed abolition of the distribution rules. If that is not done, an enormous head of steam will be built up by the increased number of entries into Heathrow, for an extension of unrestricted flying hours, both morning and evening, and for terminal 5. For some time, it has almost been assumed by some of the major interests responsible for the running of the airport, as well as those who use it, that terminal 5 is almost a foregone conclusion. Not so long ago, we received assurances that a new runway would not be built.

Mr. Wilshire: I assure anyone who may be tempted to submit a planning application for a fifth terminal that it will be fought tooth and nail by a large number of people. The bad news for my hon. Friend is that if he thinks that the only problems confronting his constituents are night flights and another terminal, he should know that they also face the prospect of a third runway. Given that his constituents would live closer to it than mine, he probably has a great deal more to fear than I have.
The conclusion of one report was that there will be a need for a third runway in south-east England and a study is being undertaken to decide its location. The Government must assure people that this report will not pre-empt the study into a third runway. If one accepts the


proposals and all the demand goes to Heathrow, it follows that the third runway will have to be located there. The Government must understand what that would involve.
The Civil Aviation Authority has said on more than one occassion that any additional runway at Heathrow would be fully utilised within five years, so we would quickly be back where we started. A third runway would also create a 50 per cent. increase in the number of flights —another 200,000 air traffic movements a year for local people to tolerate.
The construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow would start with the demolition of two villages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Two communities would be rubbed off the map. I suspect that the Department of Transport would rapidly reach the conclusion that large traffic lights would have to be erected at the M25 junction, because low-flying aircraft might risk hitting the roofs of cars on the motorway when they passed over.
A huge extension of the airport would bring with it a much greater security risk. Heathrow already has nine and a half miles of boundary fencing to guard, without another load of fencing round another runway, to the north of the existing airport. We would end up with the ludicrous situation of the world's busiest international airport having the A4 trunk road going slap through the middle of it. That would be absolute lunacy.

Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend may recollect that when Heathrow was first planned, it was intended to close the A4 once the airport was fully developed, with the M4 taking the diverted traffic. My hon. Friend makes a good case. If he means to resist all development at Heathrow and wants the airport transferred from its present location to an alternative site, the obvious choice would be Stansted. Is my hon. Friend really suggesting that Heathrow should be totally closed, and a proper international airport offering entry into this country at a proper standard developed elsewhere in its place?

Mr. Wilshire: That is a fascinating argument. Heathrow is a high quality international airport, of which we can all be proud.

Mr. Wells: It is awful.

Mr. Wilshire: I do not consider it to be at all awful. That is a slight against my constituents and against this country's aviation industry. Heathrow is an impressive airport, which handles more traffic on an international basis than any other in the world—and it does that very well. I am not suggesting that we should rub out an entire airport. I mentioned that the proposal would rub out two villages, and my hon. Friend said that perhaps a road should be wiped out. If the airport is to be extended, why not wipe out several more villages as well?
That does not make my hon. Friend's case at all. My contention is that it has to be possible to link economic success, and the convenience of the air transport industry, with a decent lifestyle for people who live nearby. They live there out of choice, they work there, and they want the place to succeed. They just do not want their lives to be ruined into the bargain.

Mr. Stern: In no way do I disagree with my hon. Friend, who is putting an effective case on behalf of his constituents, but may I add a further frog's leg to the brew? Does he not also have to consider the desire of those travellers who choose to go to Heathrow at the moment? If they were told that they could not come to Heathrow, they might choose to go to Manchester or Bristol, but they might also choose to go to Paris or Brussels.

Mr. Wilshire: We understand that absolutely, but consideration must be given to keeping Heathrow as a hub. However, one then has to ask oneself what makes Heathrow a hub. The reason is quite simply that long-haul flights can come into Heathrow and there is an enormous choice of short-haul and domestic routes going out of Heathrow.
The report before us admits that if the proposals were accepted, short-haul and domestic flights would be pushed out of Heathrow. In fact, the proposals would go a long way towards making my hon. Friend's prediction come true, which is another reason why I am against them.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I apologise for missing the first part of my hon. Friend's speech—I shall read it with great interest—and I hope that he will excuse me if I ask a question which he may already have covered in his oration. He mentioned regional airports. Does he agree that it is essential for the Government to have a strong, inter-line system with all the regional airports in Britain? The strength of this country depends upon strong regional airports with regional airlines so that industry —whether Japanese, American or European—can be conveniently based in the regions and can centre on a hub going out into Europe and beyond?

Mr. Wilshire: How right my hon. Friend is. If the report is implemented, when he pops down to his local airport in Exeter—

Mr. Steen: Plymouth.

Mr. Wilshire: I apologise. When my hon. Friend pops down to Plymouth to get on a plane to fly to London and into Heathrow, he will suddenly discover that the flight does not go there any more. He will no longer have the choice. He will have to go somewhere peculiar and catch a train, or walk. That will be the exact opposite of the objectives stated in the report.
I think that I have probably laboured the point about the worries of people living near Heathrow for quite long enough. Time may be on our side, however, and some of my hon. Friends may wish to say a little more.
The national and international issues that we need to consider are, first, the problem of United Airlines wishing to take over Pan Am routes, and where that leaves us. Secondly, we need to consider the implications of this country making unilateral changes in aviation relations. Thirdly, we need to consider the future of Stansted. Fourthly, we need to consider what the European Community is up to in Brussels as regards wanting to get its sticky little hands on slots, and we need to consider whether or not these changes will benefit or harm British aviation generally.

Mr. Wells: Is this going to go on for another half hour?

Mr. Wilshire: If my hon. Friend would like me to take him at his word, we could go on until half past ten. Is he here just because he is stuck as a result of the snow?


Perhaps it is warmer here than it is in his flat. If that is what he would like, I will oblige him, but he may regret it by the time I suggest that we concrete over his constituency.
We must first consider the United Airlines-Pan Am route problem. The problem is that Pan Am wishes to dispose of some of its routes, but not all of Pan Am. Some of the routes are from the United States into Heathrow. United Airlines wants to take them over. But that would fall foul of the rules because United Airlines would be a new airline coming into Heathrow. That is exactly why the Government brought forward their timetable. They said, "We have a problem. We realise that the rules are difficult. Let's rush the job." Indeed, for a moment or two there was some panic that the Secretary of State would make a decision within days.
Yet, in addressing the issues, the report says that the position is an anomaly, a small problem arising from the rules, which was not envisaged when the rules were written. My experience over the years suggests that the worst possible move when faced with an anomaly is to go in for wholesale change of absolutely everything. To throw one's papers up in the air and start again because one has a small problem seems a silly way of trying to solve the issue.
The matter will not be solved by changing the traffic distribution rules because the United-Pan Am dispute raises the question of bilateral agreements. They have to be renegotiated. The British Government have tried to renegotiate them and the whole thing has come unstuck. There is no progress on the bilateral implications, so there is no urgent need to deal with the report.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Minister is considering the bilateral agreements he will also be aware of the six freedom uplift, with which I am sure that he is familiar. The six freedom uplift was arranged after the war when the American airlines were allowed to fly into Heathrow and have all their planes stationed there to fly off to Europe. It seems that when the Americans ask to come into Heathrow with a new airline, the Government should address themselves to the six freedom uplift. It would mean that the British and European carriers were discriminated against because the American airlines had the right to fly from America into Heathrow or Gatwick and fly on to Europe in their own planes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider that point, too?

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government must take into account the knock-on implications because at every turn in the report the suggestions seem to have three, four or five disadvantages attached. My hon. Friend referred to one of the key disadvantages which must he considered.
The second international and national issue which we must address and which the Government must understand is how wrong it would be to make unilateral change when giving access to an airport. The report makes it clear that to open up London Heathrow on a free-for-all basis would be of undoubted benefit to foreign airlines. That should not come as any surprise. It is obvious.
The way in which international aviation always has worked, and I suspect always will work, is that if one gives someone a benefit one demands something in return. But the report suggests giving away a benefit without expecting anything in return. Let us test that against what happens

elsewhere in the world. No other city in the world which has more than one airport allows a free-for-all into its airports. To me, the implications are straightforward. If United States airlines want free access to whichever London airport they choose, we want free access when we go to New York to either J. F. Kennedy or La Guardia, as we choose. New York would not give us such access. The same would be true of Washington. We most certainly would not be allowed into National airport in Washington. If we talked to the Japanese airlines and the Japanese Government, they would not allow us free access into either of the Tokyo airports. Yet we are told that it would be a good idea to allow Japanese airlines to come into whichever United Kingdom airport they choose, which would give them an enormous advantage. That seems crazy.
The third national issue is Stansted. A detailed reading of the report shows that the Civil Aviation Authority admits that when the rules were introduced they were a great success. They did exactly what was intended for Gatwick. In the early days, Gatwick was a small, struggling regional airport. Today, it is the world's second busiest international airport after Heathrow. The report accepts that it is a great success.

The Minister for Shipping and Public Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The third busiest.

Mr. Wilshire: All right. I will settle for the third busiest —even that represents a vast improvement—but I will quarrel afterwards with anyone who disagrees with me on this point: it is still proof of how successful the rules have been.
The current position is exactly the same, except that the airport in question is Stansted instead of Gatwick. We have a third London airport with 86 per cent. spare terminal capacity, 70 per cent. spare runway capacity, and 90 per cent. of existing night quota unused. But all of that is ignored, and it is suggested that traffic should be directed to Heathrow. That is exactly the opposite of what the rules were designed to achieve; yet the case for rules remains as strong as ever.
The fourth issue which constitutes a national problem concerns the EC. The people in Brussels usually look around for things that can be seen to be of benefit to them. More often than not, such things are a great disadvantage to the nations concerned. The EC has set its sights on controlling slot allocation. At some stage we shall have to argue with Brussels about why we should keep control of the allocation of slots in this country. It seems to me that, if we are to have that argument, it would be silly to throw away the strongest bargaining card that we are ever likely to have—the rules which control who has access at the moment.
The final national issue can be stated in the form of a question: what overall harm will be done to British aviation? My earlier quotation made it clear that foreign airlines will benefit, but what will the change mean for British aviation? The report says that Virgin will benefit. It is fine that a British airline will get some benefit, but the report says that Virgin will benefit only if British Airways loses, which does not seem to do much for the overall benefit of British aviation. The report says that there will be fewer domestic flights at Heathrow. I shudder to think what British Midland will make of that. The report says that there will be less scope for regional airports and for


the small regional airlines. Will Brymon be pleased about that? The more I look at the report, the harder it is to find benefits for British aviation. It does not encourage competition; it gives foreign airlines a walk-over. This is not liberalisation—it is a reduction of choice—and it all seems to me to add up to a very compelling case for rejecting the CAA's advice.
Nevertheless, I am a realist. Despite all the logic that we can bring to this issue, the Government may be determined to do something. If that is the case, I ought to address some issues. First, I urge the Government not to rush. There is no need for haste. The United-Pan Am situation is on the back burner. If the Government take their time, they will have an opportunity to quantify the effects of the pressure on Heathrow, and that might help them to make a better decision. If they take their time, instead of giving us four days to come up with our response, other people may have a reasonable opportunity to give a considered opinion.
Secondly, if the Government are determined to press ahead, let them not scrap the rules but modify them. There are some benefits to be derived from increasing competition and liberalisation, but the report makes it clear that there are disadvantages. It also totally overlooks the need to protect local people. The only way to block the disadvantages and to protect people living near airports is to go down the road of modification rather than that of abolition.
If the Government are determined to go ahead, how will the slots be made available if there is more liberal access to Heathrow? The report suggests that airlines might voluntarily give up some of their slots. Pigs will fly before that happens. It also suggests that it might be possible to take slots away by lottery. That is not the way to run international aviation. The slot allocation system is voluntary. We cannot order airlines to give up slots. If slots are not yielded up, airlines which seek them have a legal remedy under the operator's licence held by Heathrow Airport Ltd. It could go to the courts and force action to be taken. According to the law, the Secretary of State would then have to make regulations. If the rules were scrapped, we should end up in the Alice-in-Wonderland situation of scrapping them and then forcing ourselves to introduce new ones. Time is needed to think that through properly.
The Government should see the report for what it really is. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is wishy-washy. It is also fatally flawed. In paragraph 4.1, the report admits that regulations are necessary. In paragraph 4.2, it admits that to scrap the rules would result in long-haul flights pushing short-haul flights out of Heathrow. The report also admits that domestic services are already under pressure and that to scrap the rules would increase that pressure. It admits that to scrap the rules would accelerate the reduction of choice at Heathrow, and new terminal facilities would be needed. Furthermore, it admits that the existing rules led to the successful development of Gatwick. The clincher for me is that paragraph 4 admits that nobody—not even those who seek access to Heathrow—agrees with the totality of the CAA's advice. It is a damning list, and it proves that the advice flies in the face of the Government's stated objectives.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I ask him to remember why the rules were introduced. They were introduced to limit pressure, which is now even worse, and to encourage the development of Gatwick and Stansted. I ask him also to remember that local people have rights. They know how good Heathrow is, but they are entitled to a decent night's sleep. How does the Minister intend to ensure that they will still get that? I hope that he will tell us that he intends to reject the CAA's advice. If he cannot say that today, I hope that he will say that he will seriously consider modifying rather than scrapping the rules. It is essential for all of us—the Minister, the Government and all right hon. and hon. Members—to think about the people who live near any airport as well as about the airlines and air travellers.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for his notable contribution to an outstanding Adjournment debate. This has been a very busy week for him. He, like a number of other hon. Members who represent constituencies around Heathrow, has been totally immersed in the arcane mysteries of the traffic distribution rules. Together with his colleagues, he has made strong representations about them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not have been more helpful, sympathetic and prepared to listen to the arguments that we have put to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has made the point well that we are debating this matter because, suddenly, something that was urgent has become extremely urgent and that is the resolution of the problems arising from the difficulties of Pan American World Airways and the wish of United Airlines to fly to Heathrow.
My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Brabazon of Tara, wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority in September 1990. He said that the Government
believe it is right in principle for Government to intervene in the operation of the civil aviation market only when and only to the extent that circumstances make it necessary. That principle very much underpins our approach to aviation liberalisation in Europe, where the UK is continuing to play a prominent part in securing a better deal for passengers. In that context, I am conscious of the belief in some quarters that the London area traffic distribution rules are difficult to reconcile with this liberal approach.
My noble Friend did not leave the matter there. He wrote again to the Civil Aviation Authority in November last year, saying:
There are, as you know, a number of developments occurring on the international scene, both in Europe and America, and we think it would be very helpful if we were able to consider the full picture at that time, including your advice on the future of the Traffic Distribution Rules.
It is right and proper for the Minister to make that request.
I am here representing the interests of those who live in my constituency of Uxbridge and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) had not been absent on parliamentary business, he would have been here, because a large part of the airport is in his constituency. We are concerned at the high speed with which the matter is being considered. Had it not been for the devotion to duty of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne in producing, with some of his colleagues, an


admirable paper that we were able to put to the Secretary of State within a few days, this matter might have slipped through almost unnoticed.
I represent a constituency in the borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon is the local authority that looks after the interests of London airport. If the pressure builds up in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—

Mr. Wilshire: Hon. Members who represent areas around Heathrow are sensitive people. To correct the record, Hillingdon looks after 80 per cent. of the airport and Spelthorne and Surrey look after the other 20 per cent.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I accept his division of responsibility.
The future development of the airport is important. Those who live around it believe strongly that Heathrow is vital to the interests of the nation and to their future livelihood. At the same time, they do not believe that Heathrow can be expanded indefinitely. If the proposals go through quickly and without proper consideration, it will lead to the sort of pressure described by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne.
That in turn will lead inexorably to pressure on the Government of the day for an increase in night flying, the construction of terminal 5 and, even more important from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and myself, the construction of a third runway, not on the present airport site but between the A4 and the M4. That would cause massive environmental damage to Sipson, Longford, Harmondsworth and West Drayton. I am here to speak for the interests of those who have as much right to be considered in relation to the rules as those who operate airlines and the passengers who fly on them from all over the world.

Mr. Wells: The constituents for whom my hon. Friend rightly speaks strongly should be knowledgeable about the original airport design. I too was brought up under the approach path to London airport's present No. 1 runway. The original design included the closure of the A4 and the construction of two further runways north of the present airport. Because of the advocacy of my hon. Friends who live in the area, that development was stopped. I put it to my hon. Friend that, unless Heathrow is prepared to expand and modernise to become the premier airport of the country, of which we can all be proud, and where passengers are properly treated—as opposed to what happens at present—it should close.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend refers to an original plan for Heathrow. I was born and brought up in my constituency, and I know every inch of it. I watched Heathrow being built when I was a small boy, so he cannot tell me anything about the plans. Those plans were drawn up a long time before anyone dreamed of the volume of air traffic that we have today. Therefore, we must address the problem in the light of modern conditions. We must have regard to the possible environmental damage to a vast area around Heathrow if the matter is not dealt with properly.
Very good representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by a number of local authorities, not least Buckinghamshire county council, which is also concerned about the flight path. I have had the opportunity briefly to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. I want to record my thanks to him for

two assurances which he gave me and other colleagues who saw him this week. He assured us that there would be no more night flights, even if they were applied for, and that there would be no increased runway alteration at Heathrow. Those are two valuable assurances. He could give those assurances without interfering in any way with his ability to consider the recommendations.
I do not want to take up any more time; my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has deployed the arguments very well. It is vital that, as a result of the Pan Am-United difficulty, we do not rush into decisions which will tie the hands of the Secretary of State in reaching a sensible decision about any application that may be made for a fifth terminal or an additional runway.
I recall two things that happened during the past few years. I recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) giving an assurance that air traffic movements at Heathrow would not exceed 275,000 a year. I believe that there are now well over 300,000 movements. I also remember clear assurances being given about no further terminals, yet, listening to those who have an interest in developments at Heathrow, one would think that another terminal was a foregone conclusion.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping and Public Transport to take care in what he says tonight. We shall take careful note of what is on the record.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has done a great service to the House. I am only sorry that there are no Opposition Members present, because they would have benefited from hearing what he had to say. It is a tribute to my hon. Friends, who are greatly concerned about these matters, that there is such a large attendance on this side of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for attracting so many hon. Members on this side of the House on such a bad evening.
I am glad to see the Minister on the Front Bench. When he became responsible for aviation, the national media drew attention to the fact that he loathed travelling by plane. I am told that he has been so well trained now that he cannot be kept out of the air. It is especially good that he has found time to be here to answer this debate.
I have three short but pertinent points to make, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to deal with them. First, we should do nothing that could damage our airline industry. We must do something to help it. It is going through an extremely difficult time. It is one of the greatest success stories in Europe, but is facing problems—so much so that British Airways, which was floated four years ago at, I think, £1·30 per share, has risen to 5p over the asking price in only the past few days, having reached an all-time high of £2·40. That reflects some of the difficulties that one of our major airlines is currently facing.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Steen: I was saying that, four years after flotation, shares in British Airways are today only a little higher than they were. It is understandably cutting services. Within


Great Britain, it has decided to stop flying to Eire, and services to Newcastle upon Tyne and elsewhere have been cut.
I give those examples to show that, if British Airways is facing difficulties, the rest of the industry is facing even greater problems. It would be seriously unwise of the Government to do anything that might cause additional difficulties to airlines even as large or prosperous as British Airways.
The airline industry at Gatwick is facing problems. Dan-Air, which has done such a great service to this country, is about to be sold off in part, and the family fortunes have disappeared overnight. That airline, which provided a wonderful charter service for passengers and pioneered the cheap holiday, is in difficulties, and Air Europe is having to refinance its activities. The Minister should be conscious of the fact that nothing should be done by our Government that would cause additional problems for our successful private enterprise airline industry.
My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind the fact that slots at Gatwick, which at one stage were scarcer than at Heathrow, have become increasingly available in the past year for airlines that want to fly from there. It would be a mistake for my hon. Friend to do anything that would encourage airlines to transfer to Heathrow, thereby under-utilising the infrastructure established at Gatwick in the past decade. The Government must have some regard to the fact that Gatwick has much available space and that it would be a mistake to try to cram more aircraft into Heathrow.
My second point is about regional airlines. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in his place; his interest in regional airlines is well known. He and I and some other hon. Friends went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State this morning to discuss this point. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), who joined us this morning. My right hon. and learned Friend greeted that distinguished delegation with his customary courtesy and intellectual brightness, even at an early hour of the morning. He understood our concern in Devon and Cornwall, should the services from the west country be forced to disappear.
Brymon Airways has pioneered a first-rate service from Cornwall and Devon to Heathrow and Gatwick. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and I were extremely troubled to learn that Brymon Airways is to discontinue its service into Gatwick in March simply because the landing charges there have become so excessive that it cannot afford to fly a 50-seater aeroplane into that airport. The charges made by the British Airports Authority to land a Dash 7—a 50-seater aeroplane—are approximately the same as those to land a jumbo with 450 seats.
I am concerned that any rearrangement of the slots or of slot negotiations that could result in regional airlines such as Brymon Airways or Manx Airlines being displaced from the major hub airports would have a serious impact on regional development. In Plymouth, there are many new industries—Japanese and American. The Harris Corporation is building a £16 million microchip factory in the South Hams. Its directors and staff often fly into

Plymouth out of Heathrow, having connected from the United States. We must encourage regional airports and help them to grow. If we force regional airlines out of the market by making it so costly for them to land and to take off at the major hub routes, it will do a great disservice to the Government's whole policy of regional development and the revival of regional enterprise.

Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the case that he makes so eloquently on behalf of his constituents could equally be made on behalf of the whole of Cornwall? Brymon Airways is one of the most useful tools of regional policy, both in attracting inward investment to the two counties of Devon and Cornwall and in enabling existing firms, such as English China Clays, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) at the meeting this morning, to continue their business. It is important that a firm with international business should have a feed into Heathrow, and therefore a link to the international airlines.

Mr. Steen: I could not have made the point better than my hon. Friend has. Although the Secretary of State reassured us that grandfather rights at Heathrow and Gatwick would not be lost if the Civil Aviation Authority rules were implemented, the cost of landing could not necessarily be protected adequately.
Thirdly, although the Secretary of State reminded us that legislation in the 1980s protected airlines from excessive increases in landing charges, I have done some research that shows that, although the amount by which the landing charge may rise is fixed—the formula is the retail price index minus one—the formula is for the totality of all the landings, not for individual landings.
Brymon has told us that, over the past five years, its landing fees have increased by 116 per cent. in peak periods and by 134 per cent. in off-peak periods. It makes the case extremely forcefully that a Boeing 747 with 450 seats is able to absorb the £432 fee for landing far more easily than a 50-seater aeroplane. The Government must intervene so that the smaller airlines and the regional airlines are not pushed out of the major hub airports.
It is only right to give the Minister some time to reply. Having made those two points, it would be appropriate for me to sit down.

Mr. Toby Jessel: It may be "right to give the Minister time to reply" and I shall do my utmost to co-operate in that. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that it is right that those with constituencies near Heathrow should also have some time to discuss the distribution of London air traffic. Of course, the London distribution of air traffic interacts closely with the whole problem of aircraft noise.
As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, from when you were my Whip 20 years ago, I have been concerned then and since with this matter, which is of great concern to many of my constituents. Aircraft noise is a pestilence. It ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens and affects their work in offices, schools and hospitals and churches on Sundays. We had to battle 10 years ago even to get take-offs from Heathrow stopped during the two-minute silence on Remembrance Sunday.
It is not only the peak loudness of each flight, but the sheer number of flights, and through Heathrow these


amount to about 900 per day. So in peak hours they come over every two minutes and the noise of one has hardly gone before the next one comes. Of course, it is worse in summer when people are in their gardens, or at night when they want to have their windows open.
It must be said that not everyone minds about aircraft noise. Some people do not mind about it at all. But to others it is acutely annoying and in some cases it causes mental illness. People do not merely want the noise contained. They want a substantial and permanent reduction in it.
This Conservative Administration have done more than any other Government to restrain aircraft noise, but from among all the Conservative Ministers involved in this matter in the past 11 years, no one did more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. He curbed the number of night flights and his decisions were later endorsed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). He stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link when the M25 was constructed arid he stopped the construction of the fifth terminal at Heathrow. When, on 5 June 1985, he announced that latter decision to the House, he answered this question from me:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of the 1·75 million people living around Heathrow, who were dreading the intolerable traffic congestion and noise that would have resulted from a fifth terminal, will be immensely grateful and relieved at the decision not to build a fifth terminal and to turn down the current planning application?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury replied:
I am pleased to be able to honour the Government's pledge that terminal five would not be constructed".—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, col. 310.]
It was therefore acknowledged by the Government, that there was a pledge that terminal five would not be constructed. That followed eight other statements by the Government which were quoted by Sir Humphrey Atkins in his speech on 30 January 1985, reported at columns 304 and 305 of Hansard.
No one should be in any doubt that it was then clearly announced by the Secretary of State that Government policy was a pledge that a fifth terminal should not be constructed and that it would be a departure from Government policy even to say that there is no definite policy today, as there was a Government pledge that it should not be built.
I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will confirm that the current Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), will be just as robust as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was in protecting the environment of the many hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow. That remains to be seen, but I felt some encouragement from the meeting yesterday set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who I congratulate warmly on setting up that meeting and on initiating this debate.
A word on night flights, to which the CAA report refers. There should be a complete ban on night flights, except in emergencies. It is uncivilised, intolerable and totally unacceptable that tens of thousands of people near Heathrow should be woken up at night just so that a few hundred people can get marginally cheaper holidays.
The Government stopped any increase in night flights three times running. Successive Secretaries of State for Transport have held the limit to an average of 15 flights a night in the summer season, against commercial lobbies from interested parties in aviation. However, that is not enough—night flights should be stopped completely and the night hours lengthened from the present times of 11.30 pm to 6 am, which is only six and a half hours—much less than most people need for a decent night's sleep.
Many of my constituents arrive at their offices at 9 am, in some cases 9.30 am, and may have risen at only 8 am. Others may rise at 7.30 am. It is totally wrong that the night limitation on noise should extend to only 6 am. People need at least eight hours sleep; most people need eight and a half or nine hours. The Government should insist on putting the peace, quiet and health of the people before commercial interests. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will satisfy me that the Government intend to take a fresh look at that subject.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While speaking earlier in the Adjournment debate, I should have declared an interest. I have an interest in British Midland Airways, which is part of the Airlines of Great Britain group. Although I was not speaking on that subject, I should like to declare that interest.

The Minister for Shipping and Public Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Yet again, we have witnessed a remarkable debate on, and interest in, issues relating to aviation and Heathrow and airport capacity—wider subjects than the concept outlined in the Adjournment debate. I am sure that the House is grateful for the extra time that it managed to secure to discuss what are undoubtedly important issues for many people living in the south-east, close to our major airports.
The last time that we had such a debate was some time ago. I think it was an Adjournment debate and it was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). It was interesting and related to the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on runway capacity. I found it a fascinating debate because all my hon. Friends accepted the need for an extra runway, but none of them wanted it to be at the airport in their districts.
Tonight, in a similar way, we have witnessed the rightful concerns of Members of Parliament, faced with the problem of having a major international airport close to their constituency. As a number of my hon. Friends have acknowledged, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has held meetings with many colleagues to discuss different aspects of the subject. One meeting, at which the traffic distribution rules were discussed, was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Spelthorne. A meeting this morning on regional services was headed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). There is no doubt that the issues to which my hon. Friends referred are very much to the forefront of my right hon. and learned Friend's mind.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and the subsequent speakers on addressing the important issue of London air traffic distribution. As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is presently considering the advice given to him recently by the CAA on the future of the London


rules in CAP 578. He has said that he hopes to reach a decision soon. I should make it clear from the outset, and I am sure the House will appreciate, that it would be wrong for me to anticipate tonight the result of those decisions, comment on them or on the CAA's advice. I hope that hon. Members do not expect me to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked me to give him a clue, but if I did so it would suggest that I knew the answer and that my right hon. and learned Friend had made up his mind. He has not, which is one reason why I cannot give a clue as to the result. No decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend's comment that the Secretary of State's mind has not yet been made up is helpful, and I am grateful.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am glad that my hon. Friend found that comment helpful.
Tonight's debate has been longer than is normal for an Adjournment debate, and it may not be possible for me to cover all the points made so well by my hon. Friends. I shall check carefully the report of the debate and if any issues need an individual response, I shall write to my hon. Friends with a more substantive reply than I may be able to give now.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend make certain that he refers to the important question of night flights?

Mr. McLoughlin: I hope to do that, and I shall also deal with the matter of regional airports and all the other important issues that were raised.
First, I shall speak about the background to the CAA's advice. In July 1989 the CAA submitted recommendations for modifications to the present London traffic distribution rules, following a request for advice which we had made the previous year. The changes that it proposed were relatively minor, and we took the view that, rather than make these adjustments at the margins, we should wait until we had seen the authority's wider advice on long-term airport capacity and could consider the whole picture.
The CAA's more wide-ranging advice was duly submitted last July. In September my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation wrote to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to say that, having given thought to the question of traffic distribution—including in the light of our belief that intervention in the operation of the aviation market should be kept to a minimum—we had decided to take stock of the continued need for the London rules. Accordingly, the CAA was asked to provide advice on the removal in whole or in part of the 1986 rules.
During November, the CAA carried out the consultation required by statute, and it published its advice on 22 January. After considering the various issues, the CAA advised that the balance of advantage in terms of user benefits lay with the abolition of Heathrow rule 1, which prohibits international scheduled passenger services by airlines new to Heathrow. Having taken that view, it believes that it would be logical to go on to remove Heathrow rules 2 and 3, which prohibit, respectively, whole-plane charter traffic and, unless certified by the Secretary of State, new domestic services. However, the CAA believes that the reasoning that underpins Heathrow rule 4 and Gatwick rule 1, which restrict access to those

airports of business and general aviation and of all-cargo services, remains sound and that these two rules should be retained.
I shall now deal with the issue of night noise restrictions, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Spelthorne. I know that their concern is shared by other hon. Members with constituencies in the area. The CAA noted in CAP 578 that many airlines have called for either an extension of the operating day or for only super-quiet aircraft to be allowed at night. It also noted that in the event of abolition the BAA would seek a relaxation of the night limits to allow for larger numbers of long-haul arrivals in the early morning.
The Government have always acknowledged the concerns of those living near major airports, not just in words, but in practical ways. The 1985 airports policy White Paper set out as one of our objectives the need to minimise the impact of airports on the environment generally, and our policy on night movement restrictions has served to encourage airlines to replace their noisier aircraft with quieter ones, thereby reducing noise during the day as well as at night.
I know that aircraft noise at night is a particular worry. The House will recall that we did not accept the suggestion by the CAA in 1989 that the night noise restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick should be relaxed. That decision by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members with anxieties on this score that there is no change whatever in that position. We continue to believe that the present regime, which was set in 1988 and runs until 1993, represents a reasonable balance between the interests of air transport services users on the one hand, and of the environment on the other. It follows that we have no plans to relax the existing restrictions. I am glad to give that assurance to my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham, for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Spelthorne and to all other hon. Members who have for a long time expressed concern. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has for a long time done a great deal to champion the cause of his constituents and has attempted to get the right balance. We must recognise the importance of a major international airport while doing our utmost to protect the rights of our constituents.
We have commissioned new research into sleep disturbance caused by aircraft. Some preliminary field work has already been carried out and there will be more extensive monitoring this year. The steering group set up to oversee this research includes representatives from each of the Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airport consultative committees, and Manchester airport is also taking part. The results of the research should be available in 1992 in time for the next review of the London airport night restrictions. There will, of course, be public consultation before new restrictions are applied.
I recognise the importance of regional airports and services. Not long ago, Birmingham airport was commended on the service it provides. I see here my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), a senior Whip, who often uses Birmingham airport. We pay tribute to it for the way in which it serves the local community. Regional airports are vital and we wish to encourage them.
More generally, various other noise abatement measures, such as noise preferential routes and the use of


quiet take-off and landing procedures, are used and will continue to be used. In particular—this is an important point—we have no plans to end the system of runway alternation that applies at Heathrow. That is another matter which has long concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. That again is an assurance which hon. Members who represent the Heathrow area will welcome.
Further development at Heathrow is obviously a great concern to all hon. Members who represent the Heathrow area. Proposals for further terminal capacity at Heathrow would need to be brought forward in the proper way and planning permission sought and I would of course expect the environmental aspect to receive close scrutiny. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is about to write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on that and other matters, and we await that with interest.
Similarly, I do not believe that decisions on the rules read across to the much larger question of future south-east runway capacity. That is a longer term issue directed to the year 2005 or thereabouts. Work on that is going forward separately in a group established for the purpose. That working group is looking at the wider implications of runway development at a number of locations examined last year by the CAA in air traffic control.
Several of my hon. Friends have rightly talked about domestic services at Heathrow and how they might be affected by the abolition of the rules. We are very much aware of the concern that there is on that point which has been emphasised since the publication of the CAA's advice a few weeks ago. I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointing out how vital

the regional services are to his area, and I am glad that he had an opportunity, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, of putting it concisely to my right hon. and learned Friend only this morning.

Mr. Steen: In respect of the services from Heathrow.

Mr. McLoughlin: From Heathrow, and also into Heathrow.
We are aware of the concern that the landing charges at the main London airports might in themselves make it uneconomical to mount services on thin routes into the region. The Government are clear that the airports must not be permitted to abuse their position or unfairly to exploit their users, through their charging regime.
With that in mind, we provided in the Airports Act 1986 for the economic regulation of airports. The power contained in section 41 is of particular relevance, since it allows the CAA to take appropriate remedial action where it believes that the airport operator has adopted a trade practice or pricing policy that unreasonably discriminates against any class of user, or a particular user, of the airport. A mechanism exists for that purpose, and we shall carefully consider the information that my hon. Friend presented.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friends' comments about the possible impact that accepting the authority's advice might have on domestic services, and that issue is one to which we shall give careful thought. The House will understand that I cannot say more at this time—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.